MANAGEMENT AND BUSINESS CONTEXT

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rijh20

The International Journal of Human Resource Management

ISSN: 0958-5192 (Print) 1466-4399 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rijh20

HRM practices used to promote pro- environmental behavior: a UK survey

Lara D. Zibarras & Phillipa Coan

To cite this article: Lara D. Zibarras & Phillipa Coan (2015) HRM practices used to promote pro- environmental behavior: a UK survey, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 26:16, 2121-2142, DOI: 10.1080/09585192.2014.972429

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2014.972429

Published online: 20 Jan 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1748

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 19 View citing articles

HRM practices used to promote pro-environmental behavior: a UK survey

Lara D. Zibarras a * and Phillipa Coan

b

a Psychology Department, City University London, London, UK;

b Socio-Technical Centre,

Leeds University Business School, Leeds, UK

To date, the extent to which UK organizations use human resource management (HRM) practices to promote pro-environmental behavior through workplace HRM policies and initiatives is under-researched within the literature. Therefore, this paper presents results of a survey investigating current HRM practices used to promote pro- environmental behavior in a sample of 214 UK organizations representing different sizes and industry sectors. Overall, findings indicated that HRM practices are not used to a great extent to encourage employees to become more pro-environmental. The most prevalent practices used within organizations incorporated elements of management involvement supporting the idea that managers are the gatekeepers to environmental performance. Although organizations indicated that some HRM practices were more effective than others at encouraging pro-environmental behavior in their staff, only a very small percentage of organizations actually conducted any form of evaluation; organizations consequently lack clear evidence as to whether their HRM practices actually result in employee behavior change. Practical implications and future research directions are discussed.

Keywords: behavior change; environmental management; environmental sustain- ability; green HRM; workplace pro-environmental behavior

Introduction

Over the past few decades organizations have come under increasing economic, political

and social pressure to address ecological problems and improve their environmental

performance (Sarkis, Gonzalez-Torre, & Adenso-Diaz, 2010). Not only have energy

prices reached an all-time high, governments across the world have also announced legally

binding targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 (United Nations, 2013).

As significant contributors to these emissions, organizations are now forced to comply

with environmental legislation and regulations or face financial penalties, fines and

possible legal action (e.g. Climate Change Levy, UK; Department of Energy and Climate,

2010). Beyond this ‘coerced compliance’, however, business leaders are also recognizing

the significant opportunities for their organizations in pursuing improved environmental

sustainability, both in terms of their reputation and long-term competitive advantage

(Etzion, 2007; Millar, Hind, & Magala, 2012). These combined factors have led to many

organizations aligning environmental sustainability to their overall corporate strategy

(Esty & Winston, 2009). This typically includes implementing an environmental

management system (EMS) which takes a structured approach to addressing

environmental performance (Daily & Huang, 2001; Jabbour & Santos, 2008; Ramus,

2002; Ramus & Killmer, 2007; Rimanoczy & Pearson, 2010). However, merely

introducing an EMS, and their associated policies and initiatives, does not guarantee the

q 2015 Taylor & Francis

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 2015

Vol. 26, No. 16, 2121–2142, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2014.972429

organization will improve their environmental sustainability and influence employee

behavior (Rondinelli & Vastag, 2000). Integrating these systems within existing

organizational functions including, most notably, human resource management (HRM) is

likely integral to successful EMS implementation (Daily & Huang, 2001; Renwick,

Redman, & Maguire, 2013). This paper takes a closer look at the role of HRM practices in

facilitating employees’ pro-environmental behavior.

The concept of environmental sustainability is often discussed within a broader

sustainability framework that integrates environmental, social and economic consider-

ations, referred to as the ‘triple bottom line’ (Elkington, 1998). The environmental

component has often been defined as seeking a balance between industry growth and

preserving the natural environment for future generations (Daily & Huang, 2001; Jennings

& Zandbergen, 1995; Ramus, 2002). To date, the way in which an organization achieves

this level of sustainability still remains unclear; therefore, research uncovering how

businesses can structure their policies and initiatives to enhance the opportunities for

environmental sustainability is now critical (Daily & Huang, 2001; Renwick et al., 2013).

One key approach is linking organizational efforts to employee behavior; many

researchers have argued that environmental issues are largely caused by human activity

and should therefore be tackled by changing human behavior (e.g. Ones & Dilchert, 2012;

Oskamp, 1995, 2000), a concept recognized by many governments (e.g. Parliamentary

Office for Science and Technology, 2010). However, while changing individual behavior

and everyday practices has been the underlying philosophy behind many environmental

behavior change programs outside of organizations (Uzzell & Moser, 2009), the role of

employee behavior in delivering improvements in environmental performance within

organizations has generally been overlooked (Davis & Challenger, in press; Ones &

Dilchert, 2012). Further still, the role of HRM practices in influencing employee

environmental behavior and subsequent EMS objectives has similarly been under-

researched; this is despite researchers highlighting the potential role HRM could play in

developing strategies for this purpose (e.g. Brio, Fernandez, & Junquera, 2007; Jabbour &

Santos, 2008; Jabbour, Santos, & Nagano, 2010; Jackson, Renwick, Jabbour, & Muller-

Camen, 2011; Ones & Dilchert, 2012; Rimanoczy & Pearson, 2010; Young et al., 2013).

This paper examines the role of HRM factors, such as management support, training

and reward systems (Daily & Huang, 2001), in encouraging employees to become more

pro-environmental which may ultimately support successful EMS implementation. First,

the basic concepts of an EMS are described; insights are then drawn from the green HRM

and organizational change literature to guide an examination of the HR factors that can

influence employee environmental behavior and EMS implementation; finally research is

presented outlining HR professionals’ perceptions of the extent to which HRM practices

are used, and their utility in supporting environmental sustainability (Balzarova, Castka,

Bamber, & Sharp, 2006).

Environmental management systems

An EMS is a regulatory structure that documents the procedures and policies that influence

and control an organization’s environmental impact (Deming, 1986). There are several

EMS standards to which a company can adhere, for example ISO 14001. This particular

system was introduced in 1996 and is reportedly the most widely accepted EMS

certification – an international standard based on the idea of continuous environmental

improvement (Cascio, 1996). However, like with most EMSs, it does not require that

organizations actually meet specific environmental performance goals.

L. D Zibarras and P. Coan2122

One of the assumptions of an EMS is that it helps organizations achieve better

environmental performance through standardized practices, communication, documen-

tation and organization learning (Ronnenberg, Graham, & Mahmoodi, 2011). However,

there have been contradictory findings as to whether adopting an EMS actually improves

environmental performance (e.g. Dahlström, Howes, Leinster, & Skea, 2003; Rondinelli

& Vastag, 2000; Russo & Harrison, 2005). In a meta-analysis of nine studies, Darnall and

Sides (2008) found that organizations with an EMS actually had worse environmental

performance than those that did not. By contrast, a large-scale study of 80 organizations

found that having an EMS improved overall environmental performance (National

Database on Environmental Management Systems, 2003). It is thought that one of the

reasons an EMS may not be successful following implementation is because organizations

often do not consider the basic processes by which employees and other stakeholders

accept change (Ronnenberg et al., 2011). EMS development has been described as

paralleling the establishment of other types of change management programs such as total

quality management (TQM). However, while the TQM literature highlights HRM factors

as playing a key role in successful TQM (Flynn, Schoeder, & Sakibaba, 1994; Mohrman,

Lawler, & Ledford, 1996), there is currently a lack of research examining the impact of

HRM factors in the implementation of an EMS and its associated policies and initiatives

(Jackson et al., 2011). Aside from the technical details, supportive HRM practices such as

top management support, environmental training, empowerment and rewards are likely to

be critical to the successful implementation of policies and initiatives associated with an

EMS (Daily & Huang, 2001; Govindarajulu & Daily, 2004).

Literature review

This section provides an overview of the literature relating to HRM practices that can

influence employee pro-environmental behavior and the successful implementation of an

EMS. The following five areas are outlined: employee life cycle; rewards; education and

training; employee empowerment; and management commitment. A brief review of the

wider organizational change literature is also explored.

Employee life cycle (recruitment, induction, appraisal and promotion)

Jabbour and Santos (2008) outline a number of important ways in which HRM practices

can support an organization’s environmental performance and suggest that aspects of the

employee life cycle are crucial in supporting the initiatives associated with an EMS. First,

individuals committed to the environment should initially be selected into the

organization, and, second, employees should be evaluated based on environment-related

criteria. While there is a lack of systematic studies exploring ‘green collar’ recruitment

practices (Renwick et al., 2013), a notable exception is Jabbour et al. (2010) who surveyed

94 Brazilian organizations and found recruiters selected candidates based on

environmental knowledge and motivation. Ones and Dilchert (2013) also suggest

incorporating personality factors into green recruitment, based on earlier work that linked

openness, agreeableness and conscientiousness to employee green behaviors (Dilchert &

Ones, 2011). With an increasing number of ‘green jobs’ and green tasks being added to

existing roles (Schmit, 2011), emphasizing environmental aspects within job descriptions

and person specifications has been another strategy for green recruitment as well as using

interviews to draw out candidate’s environmental knowledge, values and beliefs (Renwick

et al., 2013).

The International Journal of Human Resource Management 2123

Not only can recruitment practices cultivate a greener workforce, organizations

adopting green HRM practices can benefit from attracting a wider pool of high-quality

candidates. For example, a UK survey found that high-achieving graduates consider an

organization’s environmental performance and reputation when making decisions for job

applications (Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development [CIPD], 2007). Similarly,

a number of studies have found that job seekers are attracted to organizations with good

green credentials (e.g. Aiman-Smith, Bauer, & Cable, 2001; Backhaus, Stone, & Heiner,

2002; Behrend, Baker, & Thompson, 2009). Willness and Jones (2013) suggest this could

be down to three signaling-based mechanisms that ought to be capitalized on throughout

recruitment: job seekers may (1) perceive a strong value fit between their own and the

organization’s values; (2) use information about an organization’s social and

environmental performance as an indicator of how they treat their employees; and (3)

anticipate feeling a sense of pride working for an organization with a good reputation

regarding environmental performance.

Using environmental management performance indicators in appraisal is a further

HRM tool. Although many EMSs do not stress the importance of appraisal feedback in

relation to environmental behavior (Chinander, 2001), researchers in this area suggest that

feeding back the impact and effectiveness of environmental efforts through metrics and

appraisal processes is key in facilitating environmental performance (Govindarajulu &

Daily, 2004; Jackson et al., 2011). The key benefit of including environmental

performance indicators within performance management systems is that employees

become accountable for environmental management. However, more research is needed to

determine how best to implement this approach; while meeting the criteria for reliability,

validity and fairness perceptions, organizations also need to know how to deliver

feedback, how to balance metrics that focus on environmental behaviors with those

measuring environmental outcomes and how to distribute responsibility across the

organization (Jackson et al., 2011).

Rewards

Several authors have proposed the use of rewards to encourage employees to engage in

pro-environmental practices (Daily & Huang, 2001; Govindarajulu & Daily, 2004;

Jackson et al., 2011). Reward systems should be designed to reflect management’s

commitment to environmental performance while reinforcing and motivating employees’

pro-environmental behaviors (Daily & Huang, 2001; Patton & Daley, 1998). The rewards

themselves can be monetary (e.g. bonuses, tax exemptions, profit shares) or nonmonetary

(e.g. recognition, praise) depending on the motivations of the employees (e.g. Bass, 1999;

Davies & Smith, 2007; Govindarajulu & Daily, 2004; Leitch, Nieves, Burke, Little, &

Gorin, 1995; Patton & Daley, 1998). Typically in those organizations currently rewarding

employees for environmental behavior, monetary rewards only tend to be provided to

senior managers (Fernandez, Junquera, & Ordiz, 2003; Renwick et al., 2013). The success

of this approach is reflected in a study of 469 US organizations that linked higher CEO pay

with better environmental performance (Berrone & Gomez-Mejia, 2009).

However, designing reward systems that accurately and fairly reward employees based

on environmental performance can be difficult (Fernandez et al., 2003). First, people are

motivated by different ‘carrots’ and ‘sticks’; while the above study on CEOs reveals the

success of financial incentives, a more recent study (Handgraaf, van Lidth de Jeude, &

Appelt, 2013) found that social rewards (grade points and positive comments) were more

effective than monetary rewards and public rewards were more effective than private

L. D Zibarras and P. Coan2124

rewards in reducing energy use in a Dutch organization. Second, if punishments or

negative reinforcements for failing to make environmental improvements (e.g. warnings,

suspensions) are too harsh, employees may withdraw from environmental management or

fail to disclose environmental problems, whereas if rewards are too ‘weak’ they may fail to

motivate employee behavior (Jackson et al., 2011; Renwick et al., 2013). Reward systems

should therefore be well-designed and individually relevant (Govindarajulu & Daily,

2004).

Education and training

Appropriate training is required to implement any type of EMS standards (Daily & Huang,

2001). Successful implementation demands that employees receive information about the

standards through introductory training sessions (Beard & Rees, 2000; Daily & Huang,

2001). Through the provision of education and training, employees can become aware of

the need for pro-environmental action in the first place (Bansal & Roth, 2000;

Govindarajulu & Daily, 2004), become equipped with the key knowledge and skills

needed to carry out environmental behaviors (Brio et al., 2007; Fernandez et al., 2003;

May & Flannery, 1995) and become empowered and motivated to participate in

environmental initiatives (Cook & Seith, 1992). Ramus (2002) demonstrated that

environmental training and education along with cultivating a culture where employees

feel accountable for environmental outcomes were the most important HRM factors for

environmental goal achievement. Some authors have questioned whether EMS training

should also focus on changing attitudes and emotional involvement toward environmental

goals (e.g. Fernandez et al., 2003). This is supported by recent empirical research showing

positive environmental attitudes and positive affect predict employee pro-environmental

behavior (Bissing-Olson, Iyer, Fielding, & Zacher, 2013).

While a UK CIPD/KPMG survey reported 42% of UK organizations now educate and

train employees in environmentally friendly business practices (Phillips, 2007), training is

not always successful, for example, Perron, Cote, and Duffy (2006) found that there were

no significant differences in environmental knowledge between a group of employees who

received environmental training and those who did not. As outlined by Jackson et al.

(2011), environmental training may be unsuccessful if there is an inadequate needs

analysis, poor trainee readiness, poor training transfer to the job and/or employee

cynicism. In order to effectively support EMSs, environmental training needs to take into

consideration these potential barriers throughout design and delivery.

Employee empowerment

The introduction of any new system will be more successful if employees are treated as

key stakeholders in the organization (Leitch et al., 1995; Mohrman et al. 1996). Reflecting

traditional change management research (e.g. Strebel, 1996), environmental initiatives

that are implemented by management but without employee involvement are likely to be

less successful. A number of studies have found that employee involvement in

environmental management is related to improved environmental performance (e.g. Brio

et al., 2007; Hanna, Newman, & Johnson, 2000; Florida & Davison, 2001; May &

Flannery, 1995). Renwick et al. (2013) highlight a number of processes by which

employee involvement has its effect upon environmental management including through

(1) targeting employees’ tacit knowledge of current production processes (Boiral, 2002);

(2) engaging, motivating and empowering employees to come up with ideas for

The International Journal of Human Resource Management 2125

environmental improvement (Govindarajulu & Daily, 2004); and (3) developing an

organizational culture that supports environmental management.

There are a number of methods reported in the literature that can increase employees’

involvement toward environmental management. For example, introducing newsletters,

suggestion schemes and problem solving groups (Renwick et al., 2013), identifying low-

carbon or environmental champions (e.g. Andersson & Bateman, 2000; Clarke, 2006) and

setting up ‘green teams’ to motivate employees to be involved in environmental

improvement efforts (Govindarajulu & Daily, 2004). Empirical research (e.g. Beard &

Rees, 2000) suggests that such teams may help to generate ideas, enhance learning and

explore ways to pursue the best environmental initiatives. Implementation of any EMS is

likely to require communication and coordination from departments across the

organization (Daily & Huang, 2001); good teamwork is therefore likely to be a key

determinant of successful EMS implementation.

Manager involvement

The importance of top management commitment in driving forward environmental

sustainability is well recognized within the literature (Ramus, 2002; Rimanoczy &

Pearson, 2010; Robertson & Barling, 2013; Ronnenberg et al., 2011; Zibarras & Ballinger,

2011). This stems from management’s ability to direct corporate strategy along with

organizational policies, initiatives, programs and reward systems (Branzei, Vertinsky, &

Zietsma, 2000). Top management subsequently provide the framework for environmental

improvement including the success of an EMS (Daily & Huang, 2001; Govindarajulu &

Daily, 2004; Zutshi & Sohal, 2005).

A key contributing factor is cultivating a corporate culture that supports environmental

improvement (Govindarajulu & Daily, 2004), i.e. ensuring that the organization’s

underlying values and assumptions are in line with environmental sustainability and

employees are given the freedom to make environmental improvements (Govindarajulu &

Daily, 2004; Schein, 2010). Management can contribute toward this cultural development

by not only communicating positive environmental values but also role modelling

environmental behaviors themselves (Ones & Dilchert, 2012; Schein, 1995). In Robertson

and Barling’s (2013) recent study, they found that leaders’ personal pro-environmental

behaviors directly influenced employees’ pro-environmental behavior. They also found

that environmentally specific transformational leadership, which encompasses sharing

environmental values with employees, convincing followers they can achieve pro-

environmental behaviors, helping employees consider environmental issues in new and

innovative ways and establishing relationships with employees through which they can

exert influence, also positively impacted employee pro-environmental behavior through

increasing their passion for environmental issues. These findings are supported by

previous research demonstrating the importance of specific management behaviors in

increasing employee engagement with environmental initiatives (e.g. Ramus, 2002;

Ramus & Steger, 2000).

The HRM practices outlined above also map onto those traditional organizational

change principles considered relevant for enacting environmental sustainability within

organizations. For example Davis and Coan (in press) outline four areas of change

management relevant for driving workplace pro-environmental behavior from their review

of the literature including (1) embedding sustainability within the organizational culture

by aligning the green agenda with underlying organizational values and assumptions (e.g.

Russell & McIntosh, 2011), (2) ensuring there is strong environmental leadership with key

L. D Zibarras and P. Coan2126

change agents positioned throughout the organization (e.g. Andersson & Bateman, 2000;

Robertson & Barling, 2013), (3) engaging employees and encouraging employee

involvement through the provision of environmental information, rewards and employee

participation in decision-making (e.g. Cox, Higgins, Gloster, Foley, & Darnton, 2012;

Osbaldiston & Schott, 2012) and finally (4) choosing the appropriate form of change that

best suits the organization. For example, ‘planned change’ tends to be fairly fixed and led

by management (Burnes, 1996), whereas ‘emergent change’ tends to be more of an

ongoing process in response to evolving environmental needs and driven by employees

(By, 2005). Often it is a combination of top-down and bottom-up approaches that an

organization adopts, taking a ‘contingency approach’ where the type of change adopted is

contingent upon a number of situational variables (Davis & Coan, in press). There are

therefore clear links between these organizational change principles and the HRM

practices needed for pro-environmental behavior change and successful EMS

implementation.

Summary

The preceding literature review suggests that certain HRM practices can play an important

role in facilitating employee pro-environmental behavior and the policies and initiatives

associated with an EMS. More specifically, HRM practices can support the achievement of

sustainability objectives and help direct employees’ attention and behavior toward the

environmental strategy and goals of an organization. To date, the extent to which UK

organizations use HRM practices to promote pro-environmental behavior through

workplace HRM policies and initiatives is under-researched within the literature (Jackson

et al., 2011; Renwick et al., 2013). Therefore, this research explores the prevalence of

HRM practices used in this way and in doing so makes important empirical and practical

contributions to the environmental and HRM literatures. There is some indication in the

literature that organization size may influence the extent to which environmental practices

are implemented; for example, Grant, Bergesen, and Jones (2002) found that small

organizations are more reactive to environmental issues and regulations and Wagner

(2011) found that larger organizations are more likely to engage in environmental

management. Similarly, Min and Galle (1997) found larger organizations more likely to

adopt green purchasing practices. The impact of organization size also translates across

other HRM practices such as the use of group exercises in selection (Zibarras & Woods,

2010). It is plausible therefore that large organizations may have more resources to

implement the necessary initiatives to achieve environmental change (Ronnenberg et al.,

2011). Therefore, the influence of organization size is also explored in this research.

We adopted an exploratory approach to our analyses, with the objective to examine the

extent of HRM practices being used, and therefore did not set any formal hypotheses.

Method

Survey

The survey design was informed by reviewing previous surveys (e.g. Chartered

Management Institute, 2009), academic literature (e.g. Daily, Bishop, & Massoud, 2012;

Gonzalez, Sarkis, & Adenso-Diaz, 2008; Jabbour & Santos, 2008; Paulraj & de Jong,

2011; Ramus, 2002; Ramus & Steger, 2000) and also through informal interviews with

environmental managers responsible for environmental policy in five large organizations

along with the HR managers from three of these organizations. The survey included three

The International Journal of Human Resource Management 2127

broad areas as outlined below and a complete copy of the survey can be obtained from the

author.

(1) Company and respondent demographics, including organization size, sector and

turnover; and respondent age, gender and management level.

(2) HRM practices used to encourage pro-environmental behavior. Respondents were

asked ‘To what extent does your organization use the following methods to

encourage staff to behave in a pro-environmental way’ with response options

grouped into five categories as follows: (1) employee life cycle (including

recruitment, induction, appraisal and promotion), e.g. ‘Recruitment and selection

criteria that recognize environmental behavior/commitment’; (2) rewards, e.g.

‘Individual incentives or reward programs that encourage environmental

behavior’; (3) education and training, e.g. ‘Training courses aimed at

developing/encouraging environmental behavior’; (4) employee empowerment,

e.g. ‘Set up of green champions/task force/green team etc.’; and (5) manager

involvement, e.g. ‘Actively championed by senior management’. Each item was

rated on a scale of 1 ¼ Never to 5 ¼ Always. (3) Most successful HRM practices in encouraging employees to be pro-

environmental. Respondents were then asked to rank the top three most successful

HRM practices in encouraging employees to be pro-environmental, from the list

given in the previous question: ‘Considering the methods above, which three have

been the most successful in encouraging pro-environmental behavior in your staff

in your organization’. The final question asked whether these initiatives had been

evaluated to determine their effectiveness: ‘Have you done anything to evaluate

the effectiveness of environmental policies / initiatives on employee behavior’.

If respondents answered yes, they were prompted to specify what type of

evaluation method they had used.

Sampling procedure

In order to ensure that a representative sample of respondents completed the survey, a

number of possible sampling frames were considered for UK organizations such as the

value-added tax and pay-as-you-earn income tax registers. However, these were

considered unsuitable as they omit smaller businesses and we wanted to include a range of

different organization sizes. Therefore, two alternate sampling frames were considered.

First over 5000 members of the Chambers of Commerce were identified using membership

websites. Twenty percent of this sample (N ¼ 1000) were randomly selected and contacted. We contacted a random selection of only 20% of this sample to ensure that no

one UK region would be overrepresented because some of the membership websites

included incomplete contact information for their members. The second sampling frame

was the Personnel Manager’s Yearbook (PMY), a directory of 11,000 companies that have

HR departments or individuals responsible for HRM functions. Of these, around 80%

have contact details for the HR manager. Since the PMY contains only organizations

large enough to have a dedicated team or person responsible for HRM (i.e. medium

or large organizations), we randomly selected and contacted a smaller proportion of these

organizations (N ¼ 250). The identified person responsible for HRM within each organization (comprising

directors, managers, owners and HR managers) was contacted via email and invited to

complete the survey. However, to ensure that the respondent had adequate knowledge

L. D Zibarras and P. Coan2128

about the organization’s environmental initiatives to complete the survey, one question

specifically asked about the participant’s level of the knowledge. Any respondent that

suggested they had less than ‘average’ knowledge was dropped from the subsequent

analyses. The invitation email included information about the survey, details of how to

complete the survey, assurances of voluntary participation and that the data would be

anonymously submitted and aggregated to preserve confidentiality. Out of the 1250 emails

sent, 572 were returned undelivered, leaving a total possible sample of 678.

Participating organizations

In summary, 266 respondents completed the survey (total response rate 39%); however, 52

of these were either incomplete or completed by someone who had less than average

knowledge of environmental initiatives and were therefore not included in the analyses.

The anonymous nature of the survey meant that we could not calculate response rates from

the two subsamples. The response rate in our study compared favorably to other survey

studies (e.g. Sheehan, 2006; Zibarras & Woods, 2010). Thus, a total of 214 organizations

were included in the analyses for the present study. Of the 214 respondents, 42% were

female and 29% were male (29% missing data), and their mean age was 38.5 years. a total

of 19% were directors, 10% were senior managers, 18% middle and 9% junior managers

and 16% were nonmanagement (data were missing from 28%). The demographic

characteristics of the participating organizations, including organization size and industry

sector, are shown in Table 1. Using a x 2-test of independence, there appeared to be no significant difference between the participating organizations and initial sampling frame

with regards to organizational size and sector.

Results and analyses

Prevalence of HRM practices in UK organizations

The frequencies of the extent to which organizations use different HRM practices to

encourage pro-environmental behavior in employees can be found in Table 2. The final

Table 1. Demographic breakdown of the organizations represented in the survey.

Company information N Percentage

Organization size Small (1–50) 46 24.5 Medium (51–250) 21 13.5 Large (251–2500) 46 29.7 Very large (2500 plus) 42 27.1

Industry sector Business services 80 52.3 Public and voluntary 50 32.7 Manufacturing and retail 16 10.5 Energy 7 4.6

Turnover Less than £1 m 31 22.8 £1–10 m 30 22.1 £11–100 m 33 24.3 £101–500 m 31 22.8 Over £500 m 11 8.1

Note: Total N does not always round up to 214 due to missing data.

The International Journal of Human Resource Management 2129

T a b le

2 .

H R M

p ra c ti c e s u se d b y o rg a n iz a ti o n s to

e n c o u ra g e e m p lo y e e s to

b e p ro -e n v ir o n m e n ta l.

% u se

N e v e r

R a re ly

S o m e ti m e s

O ft e n

A lw a y s

% u se

a t le a st so m e ti m e s

E m p lo y e e li fe

c y c le

R e c ru it m e n t a n d se le c ti o n c ri te ri a th a t re c o g n iz e e n v ir o n m e n ta l

b e h a v io r/ c o m m it m e n t

5 6 .5

2 1 .2

1 3

4 .7

4 .7

2 2 .3

ra n k e d 1 4 th

In d u c ti o n p ro g ra m s th a t e m p h a si z e e n v ir o n m e n ta l is su e s/ c o n c e rn s

2 7 .8

1 7

1 9 .1

1 7 .5

1 8 .6

5 5 .2

ra n k e d 5 th

P e rf o rm

a n c e in d ic a to rs /a p p ra is a l th a t in c lu d e e n v ir o n m e n ta l b e h a v io r/ ta rg e ts

5 1 .3

1 4

1 4

1 1 .9

8 .8

3 4 .7

ra n k e d 8 th

P ro m o ti o n d e c is io n s

6 7 .9

1 8 .7

7 .3

4 .7

1 .6

1 3 .5

ra n k e d 1 6 th

R e w a rd s

In d iv id u a l in c e n ti v e s o r re w a rd

p ro g ra m s th a t e n c o u ra g e e n v ir o n m e n ta l b e h a v io r

5 7 .6

1 7 .8

1 5 .7

5 .2

3 .7

2 4 .6

ra n k e d 1 3 th

T e a m

in c e n ti v e s o r re w a rd

p ro g ra m s th a t e n c o u ra g e e n v ir o n m e n ta l b e h a v io r

5 7 .5

1 7 .1

1 8 .1

3 .1

4 .1

2 5 .4

ra n k e d 1 2 th

O rg a n iz a ti o n -b a se d in c e n ti v e s o r b o n u s sc h e m e s th a t e n c o u ra g e

e n v ir o n m e n ta l b e h a v io r

6 4 .8

1 9 .2

8 .8

4 .1

3 .1

1 6 .1

ra n k e d 1 5 th

P e n a lt ie s fo r n o n c o m p li a n c e

7 0 .5

1 7 .4

8 .9

1 .6

1 .6

1 2 .1

ra n k e d 1 7 th

E d u c a ti o n a n d tr a in in g

T ra in in g c o u rs e s a im

e d a t d e v e lo p in g /e n c o u ra g in g e n v ir o n m e n ta l b e h a v io r

4 5 .0

2 2 .2

1 6 .4

1 2 .2

4 .2

3 2 .8

ra n k e d 9 th

E n c o u ra g e d v ia

in te rn a l a w a re n e ss -r a is in g c a m p a ig n s/ p u b li c it y e tc .,

e .g . se ri e s o f le c tu re s/ se m in a rs / d e b a te s fo r e m p lo y e e s, p o st e rs

3 0 .3

1 3 .3

2 1 .8

2 3 .4

1 1 .2

5 6 .4

ra n k e d 4 th

L e a d e rs h ip /m

a n a g e m e n t tr a in in g o n e n v ir o n m e n ta l is su e s

4 6 .8

2 2 .6

1 7 .4

8 .4

4 .7

3 0 .5

ra n k e d 1 0 th

E m p lo y e e e m p o w e rm

e n t

E n g a g e m e n t w o rk sh o p s o r fo ru m s fo r st a ff to

im p ro v e e n v ir o n m e n ta l b e h a v io r

4 2 .6

1 7 .4

2 5 .3

1 0

4 .7

4 0 ra n k e d 7 th

S e t u p o f g re e n c h a m p io n s/ ta sk

fo rc e /g re e n te a m

e tc .

3 7 .8

1 1 .5

1 4 .7

1 6 .8

1 8 .3

4 9 .7

ra n k e d 6 th

M a n a g e r in v o lv e m e n t

A c ti v e ly

c h a m p io n e d b y se n io r m a n a g e m e n t

1 8 .7

1 8 .2

2 5 .7

1 5 .5

2 1 .9

6 3 .1

ra n k e d 1 st

In fo rm

a l e n c o u ra g e m e n t b y li n e m a n a g e m e n t

1 9 .4

1 9 .4

2 2 .5

1 8 .8

1 9 .9

6 1 .3

ra n k e d 2 n d

E n v ir o n m e n ta l im

p a c t fa c to re d in to

te a m /d e p a rt m e n ta l b u d g e ts

5 5 .9

1 8 .3

1 2 .4

9 .1

4 .3

2 5 .8

ra n k e d 1 1 th

In o rg a n iz a ti o n a l v is io n /m

is si o n st a te m e n t

2 9 .8

9 .9

1 7 .8

1 6 .2

2 6 .2

6 0 .2

ra n k e d 3 rd

N o te : T h e fi n a l c o lu m n in d ic a te s th e %

o f o rg a n iz a ti o n s th a t u se

th e H R M

p ra c ti c e a t le a st so m e ti m e s, a n d ra n k s th e se

in o rd e r.

L. D Zibarras and P. Coan2130

column in Table 2 indicates the total prevalence of HRM practices that are used at least

sometimes in organizations to promote environmental behavior and ranks their order. This

column indicates that the top three most prevalent methods used to encourage pro-

environmental behavior in organizations focus on manager involvement. The fourth most

prevalent method relates to education and training via internal awareness-raising

campaigns and the fifth most prevalent method relates to the employee life cycle,

specifically induction programs emphasizing environmental issues/concerns. It is noted

that the category ‘rewards’ appears to be among the least prevalent methods used in UK

organizations to encourage pro-environmental behavior.

Prevalence of HRM practices by organizational size

In recognition that larger organizations may have more resources to implement necessary

initiatives to achieve environmental change (Ronnenberg et al., 2011), we also examined

whether size of organization influenced the extent to which these were implemented.

In order to examine associations between frequency of use of HRM practices and

organization size, both Pearson’s chi-square (x 2) and Cramer’s V (crv) were used. Pearson’s chi-square indicates a relationship between independent (organization size) and

dependent (HRM practice) variables, while Cramer’s V indicates the strength of the

relationship between variables (where 0.10–0.20 indicates a weak relationship, 0.20–0.40

a moderate relationship and 0.40–0.60 is a relatively strong relationship). As shown in

Table 3, findings indicated that organization size significantly influenced the extent to

which certain HRM practices were used to influence environmental behavior. The

‘rewards’ category was the area in which organization size was most influential, with

individual (x 2 ¼ 8.48, p ¼ 0.004, crv ¼ 0.24), team (x 2 ¼ 15.83, p , 0.001, crv ¼ 0.23) and organizational (x 2 ¼ 6.62, p ¼ 0.01, crv ¼ 0.21) incentives being more prevalent among large organizations than SMEs. Aspects of ‘employee empowerment’ were also

more prevalent in large organizations, including engagement workshops (x 2 ¼ 9.19, p ¼ 0.002, crv ¼ 0.25) and setting up of green champion networks (x 2 ¼ 14.22, p , 0.001, crv ¼ 0.31). Finally performance indicators used as part of the employee life cycle (x 2 ¼ 6.77, p ¼ 0.009, crv ¼ 0.21), internal awareness campaigns as part of education and training (x 2 ¼ 32.22, p , 0.001, crv ¼ 0.47) and vision/mission statements (x 2 ¼ 12.17, p , 0.001, crv ¼ 0.28) were all found to be significantly more prevalent in large organizations than in SMEs.

Most effective HRM practices

Respondents were also asked to indicate which of the HRM practices were the most

effective in encouraging employees to become more pro-environmental; these are shown

in Table 4. The top three most effective HRM practices indicated by organizations were

encouragement via internal awareness-raising campaigns (education and training), active

championing by senior management (manager involvement) and set-up of green

champions (employee empowerment). Interestingly, rewards were included in the list of

most effective HRM practices, but, as shown in the previous section, are not used

extensively in UK organizations. A Spearman correlation was conducted to determine

whether there was a significant relationship between how effective the practices were

considered and the extent to which they were used. That is, we correlated the number of

organizations that considered the methods effective with the ranked data indicating extent

of use; we found that there was a significant correlation between the two: (r ¼ 2 0.64,

The International Journal of Human Resource Management 2131

p , 0.001), which suggests that those methods considered the most effective were used the most often. Note that the correlation is negative because the highest ranking HRM

practice is ranked as 1.

We also asked respondents to indicate whether they evaluated the effectiveness of the

HRM practices in encouraging employees to engage in environmental behavior. This was

considered an important question because we wanted to determine whether organizations

actually conducted any evaluation of HRM practices to determine their effectiveness. Out

of the 214 participating organizations, only 16% (N ¼ 34) indicated that they evaluated the effectiveness of their HRM practices. Fifty-five percent (N ¼ 117) said they did not evaluate the effectiveness of their HRM practices, while 18% (N ¼ 38) did not know. There were missing data from 12% of the sample. This is an interesting finding because if

HRM practices are not being evaluated, then it may be difficult for organizations to

determine whether they are truly effective or not.

Table 3. HRM practices used at least sometimes by organizations to encourage employees to be pro-environmental, by organizational size.

Organizational size

% that use HRM practice at least sometimes SME

(N ¼ 67) Large

(N ¼ 88) Employee life cycle Recruitment and selection criteria that recognize environmental behavior/commitment

31.3 20.0

Induction programs that emphasize environmental issues/ concerns 51.6 57.6 Performance indicators/appraisal that include environmental behavior/targets

23.4 44.0

Promotion decisions 10.9 16.7 Rewards Individual incentives or reward programs that encourage environmental behavior

14.3 35.7

Team incentives or reward programs that encourage environmental behavior

10.9 40.5

Organization-based incentives or bonus schemes that encourage environmental behavior

7.8 23.8

Penalties for noncompliance 9.5 14.3 Education and training Training courses aimed at developing/encouraging environmental behavior

27.0 38.1

Encouraged via internal awareness-raising campaigns/publicity etc., e.g. series of lectures/seminars/ debates for employees, posters

31.3 78.0

Leadership/management training on environmental issues 25.0 36.9 Employee empowerment Engagement workshops or forums for staff to improve environmental behavior

28.6 53.6

Set up of green champions/task force/green team etc. 35.9 67.1 Manager involvement Actively championed by senior management 54.7 67.5 Informal encouragement by line management 59.4 60.0 Environmental impact factored into team/departmental budgets 22.2 25.3 In organizational vision/mission statement 42.9 71.4

Note: A significant association between organization size and HRM practices used is indicated by percentages shown in italics and bold.

L. D Zibarras and P. Coan2132

Discussion

In this study we examined the extent to which UK organizations are using HRM practices to

promote environmental behavior and support EMS initiatives. In summary, organizations

appear to be using some key HRM practices to encourage pro-environmental behavior in

their employees. However, findings also indicated that organizations are not using HRM

practices to a great extent overall, with even the most prevalent HRM practice (active

championing by senior management) being used at least sometimes in only 63.1% of the

organizations sampled. This implies that over one-third of organizations were either not

using this method at all, or using it rarely. Thus, organizations could use HRM practices

more actively to promote environmental behavior and support EMS initiatives.

Additionally, the extent to which organizations implement HRM practices varies by

organization size. Of the organizations examined, a higher proportion of large organizations

implement HRM practices, most notably in relation to team, organization-based and

individual incentives. This supports the notion that large organizations have better resources

to influence environmental change (Ronnenberg et al., 2011).

The top three most prevalent methods used within organizations entailed manager

involvement, such as being actively championed by senior management or informal

encouragement by line management. This suggests that managers act as key gatekeepers

for facilitating pro-environmental behaviors providing a framework through which to

motivate their staff. This is important because the literature (e.g. Govindarajulu & Daily,

2004) and empirical research (e.g. Ramus & Steger, 2000; Ramus, 2002; Robertson &

Barling, 2013) suggest that manager involvement is influential in encouraging employees

to engage in environmental initiatives. Managers’ influence may be particularly crucial

because leaders have the scope and visibility to ensure that the same pro-environmental

messages reach a large number of employees. Particularly when leaders are

transformational in style, they can transfer environmental values, model desirable

environmental behaviors and inspire and motivate employees – both from the senior

management side and through informal encouragement from line managers (Robertson &

Table 4. Top 10 HRM practices considered most effective by organizations to encourage employees to be pro-environmental.

Category No. of

organizations

Education and training Encouraged via internal awareness-raising campaigns/ publicity etc., e.g. series of lectures/seminars/debates for employees, posters

37

Manager involvement Actively championed by senior management 34 Employee empowerment Set up of green champions/task force/green team etc. 31 Employee life cycle Induction programs that emphasize environmental

issues/concerns 27

Manager involvement Informal encouragement by line management 24 Manager involvement In organizational vision/mission statement 17 Employee empowerment Performance indicators/appraisal that include

environmental behavior/targets 15

Employee empowerment Engagement workshops or forums for staff to improve environmental behavior

13

Rewards Individual incentives or reward programs that encourage environmental behavior

9

Rewards Team incentives or reward programs that encourage environmental behavior

8

The International Journal of Human Resource Management 2133

Barling, 2013). Furthermore, manager involvement of this nature may become the starting

point for other methods concerning employee empowerment, including green teams, and

awareness-raising campaigns due to an increase in innovation elicited by transformational

leadership (Robertson & Barling, 2013).

However, while managers are important, it should be noted that even within

organizations that are committed to environmental sustainability, managers often do not

give as much support to environmental behavior than other management-related activities

(Ramus & Steger, 2000); future research should consider measuring the relative support

given to environmental issues compared to other management-related issues. Additionally,

over a third of organizations sampled did not include an environmental policy statement in

their vision/mission statement, so these companies may be missing out on an important way

in which to communicate and promote environmental issues internally to staff. Research

shows that vision/mission statements are important because they send positive signals to

staff within the organization from top management (Ramus & Steger, 2000), which

increases the likelihood that employees will engage in pro-environmental behavior (Ramus,

2002) and may serve to reinforce informal encouragement from line managers and establish

the pro-environmental status of the organization.

Although one aspect of education and training (internal awareness-raising campaigns)

was among the most prevalent methods used by organizations, the other education and

training methods were less common (ranked 9th and 10th). This can be explained

practically – it is likely to be more efficient and less costly to implement awareness-

raising campaigns through means such as seminars and posters than it is to organize formal

training courses and leadership and management training on environmental issues.

However, despite its popularity by organizations, the effectiveness of the awareness-

raising approach in terms of actual environmental behavior change is questionable (see

Barr, 2003, for a critical review). Thus, despite the potential costs, organizations may need

to involve employees in formal education programs aimed at developing and encouraging

pro-environmental behavior; it is through providing education and training that employees

can learn how to enact environmental changes and become aware of the organization’s

efforts toward sustainability. As Ramus (2002) notes, employees who know about such

policies are more likely to engage in pro-environmental behavior.

It is noteworthy that findings suggest rewards are not used extensively within

organizations to encourage pro-environmental behavior in staff. Despite literature

suggesting that rewards can be useful (Daily & Huang, 2001; Govindarajulu & Daily,

2004; Jackson et al., 2011), Fernandez et al. (2013) note that it can be difficult to

successfully implement a reward system that works for all employees and, since

individuals are motivated in different ways, this poses a problem for organizations in terms

of the resources necessary to tailor rewards to individual motivations. In light of this, it is

perhaps not surprising that rewards are not used to the extent as other methods such as

manager involvement and awareness-raising, especially in organizations with large

numbers of employees. Additionally, elements of the employee life cycle (selection,

appraisal or promotion) rank fairly low in terms of HRM practices used. This is despite the

fact that literature (e.g. Jabbour & Santos, 2008; Ramus, 2002; Ramus & Steger, 2000;

Rimanoczy & Pearson, 2010) suggests that selection/appraisal/promotion could play key

roles in supporting the attainment of sustainability-related goals via their employees.

Again, these findings suggest that organizations could make better use of their HRM

practices to support employee pro-environmental behavior and the policies and initiatives

associated with their EMSs.

L. D Zibarras and P. Coan2134

With regards to the HRM practices considered most effective in encouraging

employees toward pro-environmental behavior, four of the top five practices listed were

also most prevalently used. Indeed, there was a strong correlation between the perceived

effectiveness of HRM practices and the extent to which they were used, indicating that

organizations are using the methods that they perceive to be most successful. It was only

‘rewards’ that were ranked higher in terms of effectiveness than they were in terms of

prevalence. That said, the relative effectiveness of the HRM practices should be

interpreted with caution given that only 16% of organizations reported conducting any sort

of evaluation, and of this 16% we do not know how rigorous the evaluation methods were.

This is an important finding because it has significant implications for an organization’s

environmental performance. If only a small proportion of organizations evaluate their

HRM initiatives, it will be impossible to know whether they are actually improving

employees’ environmental behavior.

It is also important to consider the role of HR in influencing change; for example,

Rimanoczy and Pearson (2010) have highlighted that the HR function has responsibility

for ensuring that policies, processes and systems throughout organizations are cohesive,

bought-into by management and communicated clearly to all employees. Thus, HR may

be ideally positioned to influence environmental change (Dubois & Dubois, 2012). For

organizations wishing to improve employees’ environmental behavior and become

environmentally sustainable, often a culture shift is necessary (Rimanoczy & Pearson,

2010). Therefore, having environmentally relevant HRM practices in place is essential for

engaging and involving employees in this shift. Through practices such as recruitment,

selection, induction programs, training and rewards, HR will be able to help organizations

shift their culture toward one that is more pro-environmental. Weaving sustainability into

key HRM practices – and communicating this effectively – will make it more likely that

employees are agreed on what sustainability means to their organization and the necessary

steps to achieving it, both of which drive subsequent environmental behavior (Colbert &

Kurucz, 2007). Cultivating this sense of belonging to a community that is working toward

a common goal is likely to increase engagement and reinforce continued learning,

resulting in fewer barriers to change (Rimanoczy & Pearson, 2010).

Theoretical and practical implications

This research has a number of theoretical and practical implications. This study provides

empirical evidence regarding what HRM practices are currently being employed by

organizations to support employee pro-environmental behavior and those initiatives that

may form part of an EMS, yet the findings appear to highlight a gap between research and

practice. Research literature suggests HRM practices can play a key role in supporting the

attainment of sustainability and EMS goals within organizations (e.g. Govindarajulu &

Daily, 2004; Jabbour & Santos, 2008; Ramus, 2002; Ramus & Steger, 2000; Rimanoczy &

Pearson, 2010). However, the survey findings show that organizations are not using HRM

practices to a great extent. Practically, it appears that organizations could make greater use

of HRM to promote environmental behavior among staff. This could go some way toward

ensuring that EMS initiatives are supported and successfully implemented in organizations.

Currently, practices that entail manager involvement appear to be among the most

prevalent methods of encouraging pro-environmental behavior; thus, there may be an

opportunity for the HR function to engage with management to play a strategic role in

reaching environmental objectives. In addition, organizations may consider recruiting

managers who value the environment. Training should be made available to all employees,

The International Journal of Human Resource Management 2135

including management, which focuses on improving environmental knowledge,

awareness and skills. Additionally, findings imply that organizations need to empower

employees to take ownership of some of the environmentally related issues and/or

initiatives themselves, for example, including employees in the design and

implementation of any new environmental change initiative as well as appropriately

rewarding them through both formal (e.g. performance management) and informal

channels (e.g. praise and recognition).

Only a very small percentage of organizations actually evaluate HRM practices to

determine their relative success in promoting pro-environmental behavior among staff.

Ones and Dilchert (2012) highlight the need for organizations to account for both the

number of environmental initiatives introduced and the associated impacts upon the

environment. Our findings suggest that organizations may not have clear evidence as to

whether HRM practices actually result in employee behavior change and/or have a direct

impact on the environment. This evaluation is integral to help organizations identify what

does and does not work, and both self-report and objective metrics should be designed and

used for this purpose. It may also help organizations understand how to effectively

integrate these practices with each other to create organization-wide change. Furthermore,

if more organizations are able to demonstrate the success these HRM practices have in

supporting EMSs and subsequent behavior change as well as additional benefits beyond

the environment (e.g. financial outputs, Renwick et al., 2013; worker productivity, Delmas

& Pekovic, 2013), this might encourage other organizations to introduce similar practices.

A final practical implication to consider is the organizational context since this may

impact the success of any change intervention. Not only will such factors as organizational

climate (Norton, Zacher, & Ashkanasy, 2012) and organizational culture (Alcaraz et al.,

2012) play a role, but also understanding the type of organizational change strategy that

best suits the organization will be key (i.e. planned, emergent or contingent; cf. Davis &

Coan, in press). Furthermore, there are a number of external factors that drive

environmental efforts, such as external pressures, desire to control risk, response to

stakeholders, competitive advantage and revenue (Ervin, Khanna, Jones, & Wirkkala,

2013), and organizations differ in their response to these drivers. Indeed, it is noted by

Delmas and Toffel (2004) that even organizations exposed to the same pressures may

undertake differing environmental practices; therefore, an appreciation of organizational

context is likely integral to the successful implementation of environmental practices.

Limitations and recommendations for future research

There are a number of limitations of this research that should be noted. One potential

limitation of our study was its reliance on self-report data; there was no way of ensuring

that participants completed the survey honestly or accurately. This is a common problem

for self-report questionnaires (e.g. Podsakoff & Organ, 1986), although self-report data

have been shown to be valid in the context of pro-environmental behavior when objective

and subjective data were compared (see Kaiser, Frick, & Stoll-Kleemann, 2001);

nevertheless, we recommend that future survey studies should aim to collect some

objective data, such as energy and resource usage and waste. A second potential limitation

is that although this research examined the HRM practices used in organizations to

promote pro-environmental behavior in employees, it did not explore whether there was a

relationship between specific HRM practices and the extent to which employees are likely

to engage in pro-environmental behavior. Therefore, future research should aim to explore

this relationship, since this will help organizations decide where to dedicate resources for

L. D Zibarras and P. Coan2136

the greatest positive environmental impact. A further limitation is that, being a survey, the

findings represent a brief ‘snapshot’ in time as to what HRM practices organizations

currently use from the viewpoint of managers. It is acknowledged that this design did not

permit an examination of the full complexities of the issues addressed here, from the

perspectives of all employee groups (i.e. including nonmanagerial staff). Future research

should aim to (1) quantify the impact that HRM practices have had on successful EMS

implementation, (2) explore the specific role HR managers play in facilitating these HRM

practices, (3) consider the views of all employee groups, (4) uncover the key challenges in

implementing green HRM practices and (5) determine the specific factors driving

successful green HRM practices. Regarding this latter point, this could include

establishing the types of incentives and reward systems that work best; how senior

management have specifically championed environmental sustainability; the type of

environmental information included in successful training sessions and induction

programs; and the organizational contexts that are most and least suited to facilitating

green HRM practices. Finally, while the most effective practices reported in this study

map onto traditional organizational change principles considered key in driving workplace

pro-environmental behavior (see Davis & Coan, in press), a closer examination of the key

differences between the implementation of green HRM practices and both non-green

HRM practices and other forms of organizational change would be an interesting avenue

for future research.

Nevertheless, despite these limitations, this study provides a first step in capturing

those HRM practices that are most widely implemented across UK organizations while

highlighting those perceived to be most successful in facilitating employee pro-

environmental behavior.

Final comments

This study examined the prevalence of HRM practices used to promote pro-environmental

behavior in UK organizations. Our main finding was that HRM practices could be used to a

greater extent to facilitate employee pro-environmental behavior and support EMS

initiatives. Although organizations indicated that some HRM practices were effective at

encouraging pro-environmental behavior in their staff, only a very small percentage of

organizations actually conducted any form of evaluation. We believe that HRM has the

potential to lead the way on environmental management issues by engaging both staff and

leadership while incorporating sustainability as part of daily operations (Rimanoczy &

Pearson, 2010). HRM practices have an important role to play in developing capabilities

that enable change toward achieving sustainability and environment-related goals,

ultimately helping organizations achieve long-term competitive advantage (López,

Garcia, & Rodriguez, 2007).

Acknowledgment

The authors would like to thank Catrin Ballinger and Rose Freeman for their support in analyzing the data, and Maria St Ledger in her support with the final drafting of the paper.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

The International Journal of Human Resource Management 2137

References

Aiman-Smith, L., Bauer, T., & Cable, D. (2001). Are you attracted? Do you intend to pursue. A recruiting policy capturing study. Journal of Business and Psychology, 16, 219–237.

Alcaraz, J. M., Kausel, E. E., Colon, C., Escotto, M. I., Gutierrez-Martinez, I. S. I. S., Morales, D., & Vicencio, F. E. (2012). Putting organizational culture at the heart of industrial-organizational psychology’s research agenda on sustainability: Insights from Iberoamerica. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 5, 494–497.

Andersson, L. M., & Bateman, T. S. (2000). Individual environmental initiative: Championing natural environmental issues in U.S. business organizations. The Academy of Management Journal, 43, 548–570.

Backhaus, K., Stone, B. A., & Heiner, K. (2002). Exploring relationships between corporate social performance and employer attractiveness. Business and Society, 41, 292–318.

Balzarova, M. A., Castka, P., Bamber, C. J., & Sharp, J. M. (2006). How organizational culture impacts on the implementation of ISO 14001:1996 – A UK multiple-case view. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 17, 89–103. doi:10.1108/17410380610639524

Bansal, P., & Roth, K. (2000). Why companies go green: A model of ecological responsiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 717–736.

Barr, S. (2003). Strategies for sustainability: Citizens and responsible environmental behavior. Area, 35, 227–240. doi:10.1111/1475-4762.00172

Bass, B. M. (1999). Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8, 9–32. doi:10.1080/ 135943299398410

Beard, C., & Rees, S. (2000). Green teams and the management of environmental change in a UK county council. Environmental Management and Health, 11, 27–38.

Behrend, T. S., Baker, B. A., & Thompson, L. F. (2009). Effects of pro-environmental recruiting messages: The role of organizational reputation. Journal of Business Psychology, 24, 341–350.

Berrone, P., & Gomez-Mejia, L. R. (2009). Environmental performance and executive compensation: An integrated agency-institutional perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 103–126.

Bissing-Olson, M. J., Iyer, A., Fielding, K. S., & Zacher, H. (2013). Relationships between daily affect and pro-environmental behavior at work: The moderating role of pro-environmental attitude. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34, 156–175. doi:10.1002/job

Boiral, O. (2002). Tacit knowledge and environmental management. Long Range Planning, 35, 291–317.

Branzei, O., Vertinsky, I., & Zietsma, C. (2000). From green-blindness to the pursuit of eco- sustainability: An empirical investigation of leader cognitions and corporate environmental strategy choices. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Annual Meeting, ONE.

Brio, J. A. D., Fernandez, E., & Junquera, B. (2007). Management and employee involvement in achieving an environmental action-based competitive advantage: An D.W.S. empirical study. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18, 491–522.

Burnes, B. (1996). No such thing as . . . a one best way to manage organizational change. Management Decision, 34, 11–18.

By, R. (2005). Organisational change management: A critical review. Journal of Change Management, 5, 369–380.

Cascio, J. (1996). The ISO 14000 handbook. Milwaukee, WI: ASQC Quality Press. Chartered Management Institute (2009). Innovation for the recovery: How to enhance innovative

working in employees and organisations. London: Author. Chinander, K. R. (2001). Aligning accountability and awareness for environmental performance in

operations. Production and Operations Management, 10, 276–291. CIPD. (2007). Is greening the workplace on your agenda? Discussion web page at www.cipd.co.uk/

communities/discussions.htm?command¼viewandid ¼ 35986andboardi (cited in Renwick et al.).

Clarke, E. (2006). Power brokers. People Management, 18, 40–42. Cook, J., & Seith, B. J. (1992). Designing an effective environmental training program. Journal of

Environmental Regulation, 2, 53–62. Colbert, B. A., & Kurucz, E. C. (2007). Three conceptions of triple bottom line business

sustainability and the role for HRM. Human Resource Planning, 30, 21.

L. D Zibarras and P. Coan2138

Cox, A., Higgins, T., Gloster, R., Foley, B., & Darnton, A. (2012). The impact of workplace initiatives on low carbon behaviours. Edinburgh, UK. Retrieved from http://www.scotland.gov. uk/Resource/0039/00390309.pdf (accessed 25 August 2013).

Dahlström, K., Howes, C., Leinster, P., & Skea, J. (2003). Environmental management systems and company performance: Assessing the case for extending risk-based regulation. European Environment, 13, 187–203.

Daily, B. F., Bishop, J. W., & Massoud, J. A. (2012). The role of training and empowerment in environmental performance: A study of the Mexican maquiladora industry. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 32, 631–647.

Daily, B. F., & Huang, S. (2001). Achieving sustainability through attention to human resource factors in environmental management. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 21, 1539–1552.

Darnall, N., & Sides, S. (2008). Assessing the performance of voluntary environmental programs: Does certification matter? Policy Studies Journal, 36, 95–117.

Davis, M. C., & Challenger, R. (in press). Environmentally sustainable work behaviors. In P. C. Flood & Y. Freeney (Eds.), Wiley encyclopedia of management: Organizational behavior (Vol. 11, 3rd ed.).

Davis, M., & Coan, P. (in press). Organizational Change. In J. Barling & J. Robertson (Eds.), The psychology of green organizations. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Davies, G., & Smith, H. (2007). Natural resources. People Management, 8, 26–31. Delmas, M. A., & Pekovic, S. (2013). Environmental standards and labor productivity: Understanding

the mechanisms that sustain sustainability. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 230–252. Delmas, M., & Toffel, M. W. (2004). Stakeholders and environmental management practices:

An institutional framework. Business Strategy and the Environment, 13, 209–222. Deming, W. (1986). Out of the crisis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Department of Energy and Climate. (2010). Carbon reduction commitment energy efficiency scheme

(CRC). Retrieved from http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/what_we_do/lc_uk/crc/crc. aspx

Dilchert, S., & Ones, D. S. (2011). Personality and its relationship to sustainable and unsustainable workplace behaviors. In S. Dilchert (Chair), Focusing on employees to achieve environmentally sustinable organizations. Symposium conducted at the annual conference of the Society of Industrial and Organizatioanl Psychology, Chicago, IL.

Dubois, C. L., & Dubois, D. A. (2012). Expanding the vision of industrial-organizational psychology contributions to environmental sustainability. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 5, 480–483.

Elkington, J. (1998). Cannibals with forks: The triple bottom list of 21st century business. Stony Creek, CT: New Society.

Ervin, D., Wu, J., Khanna, M., Jones, C., & Wirkkala, T. (2013). Motivations and barriers to corporate environmental management. Business Strategy and the Environment, 22, 390–409.

Esty, D. C., & Winston, A. S. (2009). Green to gold: How smart companies use environmental strategy to innovate, create value, and build competitive advantage. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Etzion, D. (2007). Research on organizations and the natural environment, 1992-present: A review. Journal of Management, 33, 637–664.

Fernandez, E., Junquera, B., & Ordiz, M. (2003). Organizational culture and human resources in the environmental issue. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14, 634–656.

Florida, R., & Davison, D. (2001). Gaining from green management: Environmental management systems inside and outside of the factory. California Management Review, 43, 64–84.

Flynn, B., Schoeder, R., & Sakibaba, S. (1994). A framework for quality management research and associated measurement instrument. Journal of Operations Management, 11, 339–366.

Gonzalez, P., Sarkis, J., & Adenso-Diaz, B. (2008). Environmental management system certification and its influence on corporate practices: Evidence from the automotive industry. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 28, 1021–1041.

Govindarajulu, N., & Daily, B. F. (2004). Motivating employees for environmental improvement. Industrial Management and Data Systems, 104, 364–372.

Grant, D., Bergesen, A., & Jones, A. (2002). Organizational size and pollution: The case of the US chemical industry. American Sociological Review. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/ 10.2307/3088963

The International Journal of Human Resource Management 2139

Handgraaf, M. J., van Lidth de Jeude, M. A., & Appelt, K. C. (2013). Public praise vs. private pay: Effects of rewards on energy conservation in the workplace. Ecological Economics, 86, 86–92.

Hanna, M. D., Newman, W. R., & Johnson, P. (2000). Linking operational and environmental improvement through employee involvement. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 20, 148–165. doi:10.1108/01443570010304233

Jabbour, C. J. C., & Santos, F. C. A. (2008). The central role of human resource management in the search for sustainable organizations. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19, 2133–2154.

Jabbour, C. J. C., Santos, F. C. A., & Nagano, M. S. (2010). Contributions of HRM throughout the stages of environmental management: Methodological triangulation applied to companies in Brazil. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 21, 1049–1089.

Jackson, S. E., Renwick, D. W. S., Jabbour, J. C., & Muller-Camen, M. (2011). State-of-the-art and future directions for green human resource management: Introduction to the special issue. German Journal of Research in Human Resource Management, 25, 99–116.

Jennings, P. D., & Zandbergen, P. A. (1995). Ecologically sustainable organizations: An institutional approach. Academy of Management Review, 20, 1015–1052.

Kaiser, F. G., Frick, J., & Stoll-Kleemann, S. (2001). ‘Zur Angemessenheit selbstberichteten Verhaltens: Eine Validitätsuntersuchung der Skala Allgemeinen Ökologischen Verhaltens’ [Accuracy of self-reports: Validating the General Ecological Behavior scale]. Diagnostica, 47, 88–95.

Leitch, J., Nieves, D., Burke, G., Little, M., & Gorin, M. J. (1995). Strategies for involving employees. The Journal for Quality and Participation, 18, 68–74.

López, M. V, Garcia, A., & Rodriguez, L. (2007). Sustainable development and corporate performance: A study based on the Dow Jones Sustainability Index. Journal of Business Ethics, 75, 285–300.

May, D. R., & Flannery, B. L. (1995). Cutting waste with employee involvement teams. Business Horizons, 38, 28–38.

Millar, C., Hind, P., & Magala, S. (2012). Sustainability and the need for change: Organisational change and transformational vision. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 25, 489–500.

Min, H., & Galle, W. P. (1997). Green purchasing strategies: Trends and implications. International Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management, 33, 10–17. doi:10.1111/j.1745-493X.1997. tb00026.x

Mohrman, S. A., Lawler, E. E., & Ledford, G. E. (1996). Do employee involvement and TQM programs work? Journal for Quality and Participation, January/Feb, 6–11.

National Database on Environmental Management Systems. (2003). Environmental management systems: Do they improve performance? (Vol. Project fi). Department of Public Policy, University of North Carolina.

Norton, T. A., Zacher, H., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2012). On the importance of pro-environmental organizational climate for employee green behavior. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 5, 497.

Ones, D. S., & Dilchert, S. (2012). Environmental sustainability at work: A call to action. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 5, 503–511.

Ones, D. S., & Dilchert, S. (2013). Measuring, understanding and influencing employee green behaviors. In A. H. Huffman & S. R. Klein (Eds.), Green organizations: Driving change with I-O psychology (pp. 115–148). Hove: Routledge.

Osbaldiston, R., & Schott, J. P. (2012). Environmental sustainability and behavioral science meta- analysis of proenvironmental behavior experiments. Environment and Behavior, 44, 257–299.

Oskamp, S. (1995). Applying social psychology to avoid ecological disaster. Journal of Social Issues, 51, 217–239.

Oskamp, S. (2000). Psychological contributions to achieving an ecologically sustainable future for humanity. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 390.

Parliamentary Office for Science and Technology. (2010). Climate change: Engagement and behavior. Retrieved from http://www.parliament.uk/documents/post/postpn347.pdf (accessed 21 July 2011).

Patton, K., & Daley, D. (1998). Gainsharing in Zebulon: What do workers want? Public Personnel Management, 27, 117–131.

L. D Zibarras and P. Coan2140

Paulraj, A., & de Jong, P. (2011). The effect of ISO 14001 certification announcements on stock performance. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 31, 765–788.

Perron, G. M., Cote, R. P., & Duffy, J. F. (2006). Improving environmental awareness training in business. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16, 551–562.

Phillips, L. (2007). Go green to gain the edge over rivals. People Management, 23, 9. Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and

prospects. Journal of Management, 12, 531–544. Ramus, C. A. (2002). Encouraging innovative environmental actions: What companies and

managers must do. Journal of World Business, 37, 151–164. Ramus, C. A., & Killmer, A. B. C. (2007). Corporate greening through prosocial extrarole behaviors

– A conceptual framework for employee motivation. Business Strategy and the Environment, 16, 554–570.

Ramus, C. A., & Steger, U. (2000). The roles of supervisory support behaviors and environmental policy in employee ecoinitiatives at leading-edge European companies. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 605–626.

Renwick, D. W. S., Redman, T., & Maguire, S. (2013). Green human resource management: A review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 15, 1–14.

Rimanoczy, I., & Pearson, T. (2010). Role of HR in the new world of sustainability. Industrial and Commercial Training, 42, 11–17.

Robertson, J. L., & Barling, J. (2013). Greening organizations through leaders’ influence on employees’ pro-environmental behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34, 176–194.

Rondinelli, D., & Vastag, G. (2000). Panacea, common sense, or just a label? The value of ISO 14001 environmental management systems. European Management Journal, 18, 499–510.

Ronnenberg, S. K., Graham, M. E., & Mahmoodi, F. (2011). The important role of change management in environmental management system implementation. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 31, 631–647.

Russell, S. V., & McIntosh, M. (2011). Changing organizational culture for sustainability. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. P. M. Wilderom, & M. F. Peterson (Eds.), The handbook of organizational culture and climate (2nd ed.) (pp. 393–412). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Russo, M. V., & Harrison, N. S. (2005). Internal organization and environmental performance: Clues from the electronics industry. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 582–593.

Sarkis, J., Gonzalez-Torre, P., & Adenso-Diaz, B. (2010). Stakeholder pressure and the adoption of environmental practices: The mediating effect of training. Journal of Operations Management, 28, 163–176. doi:10.1016/j.jom.2009.10.001

Schein, E. H. (1995). The role of the founder in creating organizational culture. Family Business Review, 8, 221.

Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Schmit, M. J. (2011). Sustainability business practices in the workplace: Prevalence, methods, and

outcomes. In S. Dilchert (Chair) (Ed.), Green HR: Environmentally sustainable organizations, jobs, and employees. Chicago, IL: Symposium conducted at the annual conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology.

Sheehan, K. B. (2006). E-mail survey response rates: A review. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 6. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2001.tb00117.x.

Strebel, P. (1996). Why do employees resist change? Harvard Business Review, 74, 86–94. United Nations. (2013). Compilation of information on mitigation benefits of actions, initiatives and

options to enhance mitigation ambition. Technical paper. Retrieved from http://unfccc.int/ resource/docs/2013/tp/04.pdf (accessed 21 November 2013).

Uzzell, D., & Moser, G. (2009). Introduction: Environmental psychology on the move. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29, 307–308.

Wagner, M. (2011). Environmental management activities and HRM in German manufacturing firms: Incidence, determinants, and outcomes. German Journal of Research in Human Resource Management, 25, 157–177.

Willness, C. R., & Jones, D. A. (2013). Corporate environmental sustainability and employee recruitment: Leveraging the ‘green’ business practices to attract talent. In A. H. Huffman & S. R. Klein (Eds), Green organizations: Driving change with I-O psychology (pp. 231–250). Hove: Routledge.

The International Journal of Human Resource Management 2141

Young, C. W., Davis, M. C., McNeill, I. M., Malhotra, B., Russell, S., Unsworth, K., & Clegg, C. W. (2013). Changing behaviour: Successful environmental programmes in the workplace. Business Strategy and the Environment, doi:10.1002/bse.1836

Zibarras, L., & Ballinger, C. (2011). Promoting environmental behavior in the workplace: A survey of UK organizations. In D. Bartlett (Ed.), The psychology of sustainability in the workplace (pp. 84–90). London: BPS. Retrieved from http://www.cubeproject.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/ 2011/05/BPS_DOP_GoingGreenAtWorkBook.pdf#page¼86

Zibarras, L., & Woods, S. A. (2010). A survey of UK selection practices across different organization sizes and industry sectors. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83, 499–511.

Zutshi, A., & Sohal, A. S. (2005). Integrated management system: The experiences of three Australian organizations. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 16, 211–232. doi:10.1108/17410380510576840

L. D Zibarras and P. Coan2142