Exploring Green Human Resource Adoption and Corporate Sustainability in Nigerian Manufacturing Industry

Abstract

Gaining a sustainable environment in the manufacturing sector is dependent upon attracting top talent, providing extensive training, and embedding environmental consciousness throughout the company’s culture. Numerous cases of environmental contamination in the Nigerian manufacturing sector have led to serious health problems, confrontations with local residents, employee disengagement, decreased assurance, and organizational discontent. This study investigated green human resource management (GHRM) and corporate sustainability, focusing on manufacturing companies in Lagos State. Social identity theory was adopted for this research. The methodology used was quantitative research which made use of a questionnaire, and data were collected from 336 employees of various industrial enterprises in Lagos State, Nigeria. The findings of this research showed a significant effect between the antecedents of GHRM and corporate sustainability in the manufacturing industry. The study utilized regression analysis and demonstrated that organizations gain advantages by applying GHRM. Employees exposed to greening abilities and training reduce waste and reuse materials, enhance the firm’s image, attract and retain green customers, and reduce adverse environmental effects to better financial performance. This accomplishment benefits the company and allows employees to develop their own environmentally conscious orientation and projects.

1. Introduction

The idea that corporations are motivated solely by the pursuit of profit is increasingly becoming outdated. Companies and enterprises nowadays understand that people are the key to success. This has altered the business landscape and given rise to corporate sustainability, which provides long-term benefits to stakeholders including customers and workers through environmentally conscious practices [1]. This policy prioritizes environmental protection by analyzing the full range of ramifications in social, cultural, economic, and environmental corporate actions [2]. Sustainable business practices have evolved from more conventional definitions of fairness and ethics in the workplace. Corporate sustainability is a more all-encompassing concept than its predecessors, such as corporate social responsibility (CSR) and corporate citizenship, both of which are still in use today. Sustainable business practices have been related to lower costs and higher profits in the past. Corporate sustainability has been linked in these studies [2,3] to several positive outcomes, including higher productivity from existing staff, lower costs associated with new hires and employee turnover, and lower strategic and operational risks. As a result, it is important for professionals in the field and researchers in the academy to have a shared knowledge of the elements that impact business sustainability. Humans play a major role in shaping business practices and the success of corporate sustainability initiatives [4]. Management techniques with a green focus are carried out solely by humans who have a caring disposition toward the natural world and a strong feeling of personal accountability for their activities. Key components of green human resource management (GHRM) include hiring methods that minimize environmental impact, expanding opportunities for employees, and paying employees fairly while also encouraging them to do their part to protect the planet. It goes without saying that GHRM plays a vital part in the establishment of eco-friendly activities and policies inside institutions [5]. According to the authors, GHRM practices are crucial because they provide the building blocks for achieving corporate sustainability [6]. Newer works highlight the value and potential of GHRM in achieving business sustainability [7]. The purpose of this article is to investigate how the practice of selected green HRM components (including green hiring, green training and development, and green compensation and pay) affect business sustainability initiatives from an insider’s perspective. This relevant study fills an obvious research vacuum by investigating the connection between GHRM practices and corporate sustainability. Particularly lacking from the current body of work is the industry’s take on this crucial topic. Providing an industry perspective on GHRM and corporate sustainability, the current study addresses this gap and adds to the existing literature. The outcomes of the current study will help practitioners understand how GHRM practices contribute to long-term business viability. Although GHRM practices have been linked to improved business sustainability [3], there is no evidence in the academic literature to support this claim. There have been increasing requests in the literature to study the connection between GHRM practices and corporate sustainability [4], and this interest is supported by studies from both developed and developing countries. However, studies have found that the aforementioned relationship is rarely studied across sectors [2]. Thus, the current study employs the key tenets of the stakeholder theory in the industrial/manufacturing sector to address this need. The aforementioned industries are crucial to the overall GDP of the country in question. Similarly, the country prioritizes long-term viability and full human development in the aforementioned field. Now that the study has accomplished its primary goal, it contributes to the literature in a number of ways. First, the study has theoretical import since it provides support for the central tenet of stakeholder theory regarding the connection between GHRM and business sustainability measures. Second, the research fills a gap in the literature by providing a specific example of the subject–verb interaction in a developing-economies setting. The Security Exchange Commission (SEC) established a code of corporate governance 2019 emphasizing the implementation of green and sustainable workplace practices in these industries, thus the study concludes with practical implications for these sectors. First, we provide a brief overview of the literature on GHRM and business sustainability, and then we move on to the next step, which is the formulation of study hypotheses. We then go on to detail the techniques used in this investigation. After introducing the methodology used and the outcomes obtained, we provide an in-depth discussion of the results and their ramifications for future studies and clinical use. The final part of the report discusses the study’s shortcomings and offers many suggestions for follow-up research.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Green Recruitment and Selection

Advertisements for green jobs should include information on the company’s environmental policies (for example: to be involved in achieving green goals). Proactively branding the business as a superior “green employer of choice” may aid in attracting environmentally conscious employees [8]. Many companies now realize that building a reputation for being a green employer is a powerful recruiting tool [9]. Ref. [4] studied the impact of green human resource management practices on environmental sustainability. They concluded that selecting eco-conscious people will help an organization achieve its sustainability goals. In reality, ecologically friendly companies can employ the talent they need to conduct environmental management initiatives, which ultimately helps them achieve their environmental goals. However, little research has examined the link between green hiring and long-term economic viability in Nigeria.

Candidate commitment to environmental concerns and shared values are important considerations for organizations when recruiting and selecting new employees [10]. Based on three components of green recruitment and selection identified by [11], green recruitment and selection may be defined as follows: applicants’ green awareness and green principles utilized to draw applications. A candidate’s green responsiveness is the most fundamental component of green RS, according to [12]; this awareness encompasses the personality characteristics that enable candidates to realize environmental goals such as green awareness as the environmental goals themselves. Observations have shown that environmentally conscientious employees are constantly enhancing their environmental consciousness, which improves the employees’ performance in their organizations. Companies should recruit and select environmentally conscious personnel by standards, ensuring that all employees know the issues at hand. In their job descriptions and personnel criteria, hiring firms, for example, should emphasize environmental considerations and concerns strongly. An extensive set of questions about employees’ environmental awareness, morals, and philosophical views can be used to identify those who perform the best in these areas [11]. It is anticipated that the recruitment procedure would result in applicants who are passionate about the environment and can add to the organization’s mission and objectives. Green recruiting and selection are more likely to result in the formation of an employee that embraces the organization’s green ideas and culture while also engaging in green behaviors on a “job-related and voluntary” basis in achieving the goals of the organization.

2.2. Green Training

Ref. [13] defines green training as activities that motivate employees to pay attention to environmental issues. Ref. [13] argues that “green training” is vital for achieving environmental goals. Environmental activities can be made safer and more environmentally friendly by increasing employee awareness, knowledge, and competencies. Employees who have undergone green training are more conscious of the need to protect the environment, and as a result, they are aware of the process of controlling the environment. Following [13]’s definition of green recruiting, the elements of green recruiting include high-quality training, availability of training prospects, and evaluating training and how practical the training will be. Ref. [14] revealed that employees’ training significantly influences organizational effectiveness.

Through green training and development, employees can learn environmental conservation capabilities and environmental protection skills (TD). These skills are crucial to accomplishing environmental goals [15]. Increased environmental knowledge among employees, developing green ideals, and boosting their ability to apply green working practices are all examples of green TD practices [16]. It increases their awareness of the relationship between their activity and the surrounding environment. It equips students with the knowledge and abilities necessary to identify environmental challenges and undertake the necessary stages to minimize the challenge [16]. Through training, employers can raise their staff’s awareness, knowledge, and abilities [10]. Workers who participate in a green training program will be more aware of the need for environmental conservation. Employees can become more sensitive to this issue due to programs such as these [17]. Training of employees must take place in the organization to guard nature; this will assist employees in adopting responsible environmental behaviors, which will help them embrace the issue [17]. The use of green human resource adoption allows employees to receive complete sustainability training, improving their awareness and abilities in environmental preservation while also enlightening their ability to deal with complicated motivating situations [18]. Employees need to obtain training on how to collect trash information and develop environmental competence. As a result of the training provided, all staff are encouraged to participate in environmental efforts [18]. The ability to recognize and manage organizational environmental challenges increases the likelihood that employees will find their jobs meaningful, which leads to improved work-related green behavior.

2.3. Green Compensation

Companies can aim to recruit and retain employees by offering monetary and nonmonetary incentives, as was outlined by [19]. These incentives can be used to encourage employees to work toward environmental goals. The findings of [20] revealed that there is a strong relationship between compensation packages and employee performance and retention. Providing nonmonetary incentives, such as green pay and recognition and praise, may be more effective in motivating staff than providing monetary incentives. Employee incentives and rewards, as opposed to other human resource management tactics such as performance appraisal, may be more effective in encouraging employees to fulfill company goals than other human resource management strategies. Employees who participate in green compensation management, which incorporates financial and non-financial incentives, are more likely to stay and contribute to environmental goals than those who do not [21]. In addition to monetary incentives, non-cash incentives such as free travel and special recognition for environmental stewardship are also available to participants. Prizes that reward environmentally friendly behavior promote employee pride and foster a sense of community [10]. Reimbursement policies that promote environmental goals and provide the appropriate motivation for employees to engage in environmental-friendly actions can encourage work-related and voluntary behaviors.

2.4. Concept of Corporate Sustainability

Ref. [4] defined corporate sustainability as a company’s ability to operate in a way that guarantees the continuing good condition and subsistence of the company and the economic, social, and environmental systems that are associated with it. When it comes to corporate sustainability, there is a distinction between green HRM and traditional HR practices, because green HRM practices lay the groundwork and categorize the specific activities, processes, and procedures that lead to long-term viability. In this regard, sustainability can be defined as adopting green HRM practices and actions [9]. Aside from that, while corporate sustainability can be seen as a result or outcome of an organization, green HRM focuses on individual employees and their actions and purposes in finding a solution to the environmental challenges faced by the company, strategizing the same as a possible precursor to shared sustainability. According to [22], corporate sustainability is a result of organizational policies and functions that emphasize relationships, development, and the natural environment [23]. Two distinct types of businesses are “green” and “sustainable”. A “green” business only cares about the environment, while a “sustainable” business cares about all three dimensions of sustainability. Interdependencies between the realms must be recognized and accounted for [24]. Several authors have criticized the attempt of private industry, particularly manufacturing, to become “sustainable” because of the limitation of the environmental dimension [25].

According to [26]’s four-step model for sustainable development in businesses, taking environmental initiatives can serve as a springboard for further progress toward sustainability. Initially, efforts primarily focused on developing environmentally friendly processes and environmental management practices. As a result of these final steps, organizations are pushed to broaden their scope to include collective and principled considerations and combinations in their local communities [26]. A similar model developed by [27] identifies distinct steps organizations can take to achieve long-term viability and stability. A company’s final stage is known as “the sustaining corporation,” in which the sustainability ideology is internalized, and a fundamental commitment is made to help the planet remain ecologically viable while promoting social equity and human fulfillment. No organization has reached this level of maturity, according to [27]. Companies in the early stages of integrating environmental, social, and economic aspects of sustainability need to keep up their efforts.

2.5. Economic Sustainability

For a business, economic sustainability means it can make money to stay afloat and contribute to the local and national economies [28]. For a business to be sustainable, it must consider factors such as job creation, local wages, and its impact on the local economy. To ensure that similar standards and practices are matters of economic sustainability, this includes suppliers and engagement across the supply chain. To stay afloat and meet all its stakeholders’ expectations, companies must be profitable and financially stable simultaneously [28]. The environmental economy began in advanced countries in the 1970s as a response to environmental destruction and overuse of natural resources, relating concepts of the economy and ecology [29].

Nevertheless, it was not until a long time later that this idea extended throughout the advancing world. Economic theory has significantly impacted sustainable development because it has expanded the definition of “capital” outside the confines of traditional economics, business, and finance [30]. To ensure the continuing feasibility of sustainable development, the economic aspect must be considered [31]. Discussions about the meaning and scope of the term “sustainable economy” abound. According to [26], sustainable economic development reduces poverty in developing countries. However, the main goal of economics in sustainable development is to appraise or evaluate environmental and ecological damage while planning a relevant result to minimize such deprivations in the emerging world, as stated in the Rutland Report [32]. As it cannot be defined independently of the other sustainability supports, it is difficult to come up with a definition that everyone can agree on for the term “sustainable economy.”

2.6. Social Sustainability

The meaning of social sustainability is numerous because it includes explanations of society, culture, and community. In a nutshell, social sustainability concerns how people interact socially with their relationships, behaviors, and values [33]. For businesses to be sustainable, they must maintain a respectful relationship with their host communities, involve locals, and recognize the importance of traditions and culture in their experiences and activities [33]. Personal and social needs must be balanced with nature’s ability to sustain human life and environments. An increase in public suspicion of business practices, exemplified by scandal, demonstrates the social dimension of sustainability. The conflict between business and society is evident in this dimension, but there is also the convergence of welfare when businesses react to sustainability. It is a microcosm of more significant concern for habitat and quality of life at the macro level, which is what happens when businesses respond to sustainability. Two-thirds of consumers polled worldwide in 1999 said they wanted companies to help further social objectives [34]. Much work has been done in corporate social responsibility (CSR) to investigate the social length of sustainability.

2.7. Environmental Sustainability

The environmental aspect of sustainability has garnered the most attention in the scientific literature. An abundance of environmental information is available to those working in manufacturing, including the reduction of energy and water usage and how to recycle waste. A study of London manufacturing shows that almost all respondents are acting on environmental issues, as shown by the survey results [34]. Others have found that most companies (especially those in product-based industries like manufacturing) are aware of their negative environmental impacts. Resource depletion, such as energy, water, and other nonrenewable resources, calls for environmental intervention [35]. Using unbleached, undyed fabrics, recycled supplies, and recycling systems are just a few examples of other environmentally friendly operations management practices implemented by manufacturers [34,36]. Ecological systems, societies, and economies all interact with and influence the physical environment. These evolving systems will bring about changes in the physical environment, while in other aspects, they will prevent or resist those changes. Due to this, a program to promote environmental sustainability could never hope to preserve and protect every part of the natural world [37]. The goals of any environmental sustainability program must begin with a clear understanding of the physical environment, including what should be preserved and what can or should not be changed. To sustain the physical environment, people’s values, needs, skills, and technology, as well as the resources available to support the action program, will determine exactly what they aim to achieve [37] (Figure 1).

3. Theoretical Review

According to the stakeholder theory, managers’ primary duty is not limited to satisfying shareholders but rather to having a positive effect on all “stakeholders” [3]. In this context, “stakeholder” refers to everyone who has a vested interest in the success of the company, whether that interest is financial, political, or otherwise. Basically, a stakeholder is anyone who has an interest in or is impacted by an organization’s actions. Employees and stockholders are examples of stakeholders who are located near to the company environment and have direct stakes, while communities and people/entities outside the firm have indirect stakes. As a result, this idea is chosen for this investigation so that its tenets can be fully elucidated. The central tenet of the stakeholder theory was also used in earlier research on the topic [37]. Understanding the company’s internal and external environmental and social implications is crucial to achieving corporate sustainability [38]. Stakeholders’ participation is essential for understanding and addressing the effects and worries raised by this. Internally, a company might work toward corporate sustainability by providing training for staff and developing strategies or policies to promote long-term viability. When considering the world outside the corporation, a wide variety of people and groups might be considered stakeholders. In this situation, the organization must balance the interests of numerous interested parties with their own. Corporate sustainability relies heavily on the active participation of internal and external stakeholders. Sustainability and GHRM help the company provide for a wide range of constituents. Similarly, the core concepts of stakeholder theory according to [39] can be applied to a wide range of fields, including manufacturing, finance, education, and information technology. Even if the needs of various stakeholders vary between sectors, their significance remains paramount [40]. Both Corporate Sustainability and GHRM are concerned with the influence of an organization’s actions on its social, environmental, and economic performance; as such, they are inextricably linked.

3.1. Materials and Methods

The study adopted a correlational survey research design [41] opined that a survey design is preferable when developing information on the opinions, attitudes, and behavior of individuals in a population. Therefore, this design is suitable for this study because it fundamentally explains how green human resources management variables predict employee motivation in the selected manufacturing companies in Lagos State.

The study was carried out in Lagos State, Nigeria, which is the state with the largest city in the industrial hub of Nigeria. Lagos State is among the top ten industrial zones in Nigeria. The population of the study is the various organizations representing the strata. The strata consist of different organizations (heterogeneous groups) that engage in different activities; the strata are divided into stratum, each consisting of a homogeneous group. The homogeneous groups (stratum) are the organizations in the same line of business activity. Samples were selected randomly from each stratum. Given the fact that the study is carried out to examine the level of firms’ awareness and involvement in green HRM practice, in line with these objectives, a total of 45 firms that are susceptible to cause environmental health issues due to their business activities are selected across various organizations in Lagos State. In addition, 84 employees were selected among the employees working in these organizations. Among the 14 industrial zones, three organizations were randomly selected from each organization, giving a total of 42 organizations that were randomly selected from the 14 industrial zones. Among these 42 organizations selected, only human resource managers and human resource officers were selected to participate in this survey from 42 randomly selected organizations, resulting in a total of 336 HR personnel.

This study utilized a structured questionnaire to elicit information in two sections, namely Section A, which contained the demographic characteristics of the population comprising gender, years of service and educational background, Section B, which contained questions pertaining to green human resources management, and Section C, which also contained questions pertaining the elements of corporate sustainability. Green human resources management and corporate sustainability was measured using three dimensions, and the questionnaire was structured on a 5-point Likert scale where 1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Agree, and finally, 5 = Strongly Agree (Supplementary Materials).

To assess the validity, the questionnaire was given to professionals in the field of human resources. Then, the reliability test of each of the constructs was carried out using Cronbach’s alpha. These characteristics were determined during pilot research, and the result revealed that the data were normally distributed and that the scale reliability was over 0.70 percent. Between those two points in time, SPSS was used for the coding of the data while regression was used to analyze the replies of respondents and to determine the correlations between green human resource management and corporate sustainability in chosen manufacturing industries in Lagos State.

Ethical issues were brought up to receive proper consideration. The study assures that all responders were permitted to remain anonymous and that any participant who wishes to withdraw at any point throughout the study would not be required to explain their decision to withdraw from participation. Furthermore, all the responders were informed that the information they supplied would be treated with the strictest secrecy possible.

3.2. Response Frequency

Table 1. Response rate.

Questionnaire	Frequency	Valid Percentage
Valid	302	89.88%
Invalid/unfilled	34	10.12%
Total	336	100%

Source: Researcher’s Survey, 2022.

shows the details of the response rate. The response rate was high because of the researcher’s consistent follow-ups. However, out of the 336 copies sent out, 34 copies (10.12%) could not be retrieved, while 302 copies (89.88%) were retrieved for the analysis. This reflected 89.88 percent response rate that is relevant enough to draw conclusion on the relationship between the variables.

Table 2. Gender.

	Frequency	Percent
Male	187	61.9%
Female	115	38.1%
Total	302	100.0%

Source: Researcher’s Survey, 2022.

displayed the gender of the participants who participated in this study. A total of 187 (61.9%) male respondents and 115 (38.1%) female respondents were sampled in the study.

4. Results

• Test of Hypotheses

Hypotheses 1 (H1).

Green Recruitment and Selection does not have a significant effect on Environmental Sustainability.

• Rule

(R) is very weak between 0.0 and 0.20, weak between 0.20 and 0.40, moderate between 0.40 and 0.60, strong between 0.60 and 0.80, and very strong above 0.80.

• Result Interpretation

In the model summary shown in

Table 3. Model Summary for Green Recruitment and Selection and Environmental Sustainability.

Model	R	R Square	Adjusted R Square	Std. Error of the Estimate
1	0.360 a	0.129	0.127	0.51470

Source: Researcher’s Survey, 2022. ^a Predictors: (Constant), Green Recruitment and Selection.

, the R has a 0.360 influence of green recruitment on environmental sustainability, and this shows a weak relationship. The table reveals the degree to which the dependent variable (Environmental Sustainability) explains the independent variable (Green Recruitment and Selection). This is represented by R square = 0.129, expressed as 12.9%. This indicates that Green Recruitment accounts only for 12.9% of the variance on Environmental Sustainability. Therefore, other factors that was not included in the model is 87.1% (100–12.9%) of the Environmental Sustainability variance. The standard error estimate, which is the error term, is 0.51470.

• Decision

There is a weak effect of Green Recruitment and selection on environmental sustainability (

Table 4. Effect of Green Recruitment and selection on environmental sustainability.

ANOVA a
Model		Sum of Squares	Df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
1	Regression	11.817	1	11.817	44.606	0.000 b
	Residual	79.475	300	0.265
	Total	91.291	301

Source: Researcher’s Survey, 2022. ^a Dependent Variable: Environmental Sustainability. ^b Predictors: (Constant), Green Recruitment and Selection.

).

• Rule

Reject H₀ (null hypothesis) when the p value is below 0.05.

Accept H₀ (null hypothesis) when the p value is above 0.05.

• Interpretation of Result

From the ANOVA table above, F value shows 44.606 at 0.00 significance. This indicates a significant effect of Green Recruitment and Selection on environmental sustainability.

• Decision

Since the significant is below 0.05, H1 is rejected, and this displays that Green Recruitment and Selection has a significant effect on environmental sustainability.

• Result Interpretation

B = 2.271, which is the constant, intercepts the regression. This indicates that when Green Recruitment and Selection is 0, Environmental Sustainability is 2.271. The B value for Green Recruitment and Selection is 0.355, and this represents the regression slope; a unit of increase in Green Recruitment and Selection results in a 0.355 addition to Environmental Sustainability.

Table 5. Significant effect on environmental sustainability.

Coefficients a
Model		Unstandardized Coefficients		Standardized Coefficients	t	Sig.
		B	Std. Error	Beta
1	(Constant)	2.271	0.195		11.652	0.000
	Green Recruitment and Selection	0.355	0.053	0.360	6.679	0.000

Source: Researcher’s Survey, 2022. ^a Dependent Variable: Environmental Sustainability.

specifies that Green Recruitment and Selection has an effect on environmental sustainability (β = 0.360; t = 6.679; p = 0.000).

Hypotheses 2 (H2).

There is no significant effect between green Training and Development on Social Sustainability.

• Rule

(R) is very weak between 0.0 and 0.20, weak between 0.20 and 0.40, moderate between 0.40 and 0.60, strong between 0.60 and 0.80, and very strong above 0.80.

• Result Interpretation

In the model summary shown in

Table 6. Model Summary for Green Training and Development on Social Sustainability.

Model	R	R Square	Adjusted R Square	Std. Error of the Estimate
1	0.446 a	0.199	0.194	0.45888

Source: Researcher’s Survey, 2022. ^a Predictors: (Constant), Green Training and Development.

, the R has a 0.446, which implies that Green Training and Development has a moderate relationship with social sustainability, and this shows a moderate relationship. The table reveals the degree to which the dependent variable (Social Sustainability) explains the independent variable (Green Training and Development). This is represented by R square = 0.199, expressed as 19.9%. This indicates that Green Training and Development accounts only for 19.9% of the variance on Social Sustainability. Therefore, other factors that were not included in the model are 80.1% (100–19.9%) of the Social Sustainability variance. The standard error estimate, which is the error term, is 0.45888.

• Decision

There is a weak effect of Green Training and Development on Social Sustainability (

Table 7. Effect of Green Training and Development on Social Sustainability.

ANOVA a
Model		Sum of Squares	Df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
1	Regression	15.674	1	7.837	37.218	0.000 b
	Residual	62.961	299	0.211
	Total	78.635	301

Source: Researcher’s Survey, 2022. ^a Dependent Variable: Social Sustainability. ^b Predictors: (Constant), Green Training and Development.

).

• Rule

Reject H1 (null hypothesis) when the p value is below 0.05.

Accept H1 (null hypothesis) when the p value is above 0.05.

• Result Interpretation

From the ANOVA table above, F value shows 37.218 20.109 at 0.00 significance. This indicates a significant effect of Green Training and Development on Social Sustainability.

• Decision

Since the significant is below 0.05, H1 is rejected, and this shows that Green Training and Development has a significant effect on Social Sustainability.

• Result Interpretation

B = 2.030, and is the constant that intercepts the regression. This indicates that when Green Training and Development is 0, Economic Sustainability is 2.030 (

Table 8. Coefficient for Green Training and Development and Social Sustainability.

Coefficients a
Model		Unstandardized Coefficients		Standardized Coefficients	t	Sig.
		B	Std. Error	Beta
1	(Constant)	2.030	0.214		9.498	0.000
	Green Training and Development	0.290	0.041	0.372	7.140	0.000

Source: Researcher’s Survey, 2022. ^a Dependent Variable: Social Sustainability.

).

The B value for Green Training and Development is 0.290, and this represents the regression slope; a unit of increase in Green Training and Development results in a 0.290 addition to Social Sustainability. Table 8 specifies that Green Training and Development has an effect on Social Sustainability (β = 0.372; t = 7.140; p = 0.000).

Hypotheses 3 (H3).

Green Compensation does not have a significant effect on Economic Sustainability.

• Rules

(R) is very weak between 0.0 and 0.20, weak between 0.20 and 0.40, moderate between 0.40 and 0.60, strong between 0.60 and 0.80, and very strong above 0.80.

• Result Interpretation

In the model summary shown in

Table 9. Model Summary for Green Compensation and Economic Sustainability.

Model	R	R Square	Adjusted R Square	Std. Error of the Estimate
1	0.251 a	0.063	0.060	0.49563

Source: Researcher’s Survey, 2022. ^a Predictors: (Constant), Green Compensation.

, the R has a 0.251 influence on Green Compensation on Economic Sustainability, and this shows a very weak relationship. The table reveals the degree to which the dependent variable (Economic Sustainability) explains the independent variable (Green Compensation). This is represented by R square = 0.063, expressed as 6.3%. This indicates that Green Compensation accounts only for 6.3% of the variance in Economic Sustainability. Therefore, other factors that were not included in the model are 93.7% (100–6.3%) of the Economic Sustainability variance. The standard error estimate, which is the error term, is 0.49563.

• Decision

There is a weak effect between Green Compensation and Economic Sustainability (

Table 10. Effect between Green Compensation and Economic Sustainability.

ANOVA a
Model		Sum of Squares	Df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
1	Regression	4.940	1	4.940	20.109	0.000 b
	Residual	73.695	300	0.246
	Total	78.635	301

Source: Researcher’s Survey, 2022. ^a Dependent Variable: Economic Sustainability. ^b Predictors: (Constant), Green Compensation,

).

• Rule

Reject H1 (null hypothesis) when the p value is below 0.05.

Accept H1 (null hypothesis) when the p value is above 0.05.

• Result Interpretation

From the ANOVA table above, the F value shows 20.109 at 0.00 significance. This indicates a significant effect of Green Compensation on Economic Sustainability.

• Decision

Since the significant is below 0.05, H1 is rejected, and this indicates that Green Compensation has a significant effect on Economic Sustainability.

• Result Interpretation

B = 2.919, and is the constant that intercepts the regression. It indicates that when Green Compensation is 0, Economic Sustainability is 2.919. The B value for Green Compensation is 0.229, and this represents the regression slope; a unit of increase in Green compensation results in a 0.229 addition to Economic Sustainability.

Table 11. Coefficients for Green Compensation and Economic Sustainability.

Coefficients a
Model		Unstandardized Coefficients		Standardized Coefficients	t	Sig.
		B	Std. Error	Beta
1	(Constant)	2.919	0.188		15.552	0.000
	Green Compensation	0.229	0.051	0.251	4.484	0.000

Source: Researcher’s Survey, 2022. ^a Dependent Variable: Economic Sustainability.

specifies that Green Compensation has an effect on Economic Sustainability (β = 0.251; t = 4.484; p = 0.000).

5. Conclusions and Recommendations

The findings of this research showed a significant effect between antecedents of GHRM and corporate sustainability in the manufacturing industries in Nigeria. Extant literature has established that adopting green human resource management will promote sustainability in the organization [16,18,42]. This implies that adequate compensation for employees for adopting green human resources will lead to high motivation to inculcate a green environment. This will also go a long way in enhancing their job delivery and efficiency. The findings above show that green training and development have the highest relationship with corporate performance. The findings also showed that it is not enough to recruit employees who are assumed to share the same ideology; it is also necessary to train them to conform to the organization’s green culture. This result agrees with the opinions of [42]. They opined that the critical component of green human resource management in an organization include the delivery of specialized training on environmental management topics such as safety, energy efficiency, waste management, and recycling, as well as environmental-related education, training, and development. This implies that the case study companies ensure that new employees recognize an organization’s green behavior and share its environmental beliefs. In addition, green compensation management is a good predictor of corporate sustainability. This argument agrees with the conclusions of [17,29,31,43,44], who suggested providing incentives to support re-use, recycling, and waste management.

This research investigated the influence of green human resource management on corporate sustainability in selected industries in Lagos, Nigeria. This study’s findings indicate a beneficial association between green HRM and company sustainability. The research has added to the existing literature by indicating that green human resource management is vital in achieving sustainable development goals (SDGs). The study also concludes that green organizations gain advantages by applying the GHRM such as green recruitments and selection where the employees will be exposed to greening abilities; green training whereby employees will imbibe the skills of reducing wastes, recycling and reuse of materials, enhancing the property image, attracting and retaining customers, reducing the negative environmental effect and better financial performance; and finally, green compensation management should be inculcated so that employees are rewarded for carrying out green activities in the workplace.

6. Practical Implications

Human resource managers should incorporate environmentally friendly practices into their HRM procedures. This incorporation should cover all aspects of HRM, including planning, job analysis, and design, recruitment and selection, induction, training and development, performance appraisal, reward management, and employee relations.

Human resource managers should understand GHRM practices and work to expand the breadth and depth of such practices to help firms improve their environmental performance in a more sustainable manner.

Generally, to improve green practices, the government should incorporate greening methods into Nigerian labour law and promote firms that adopt green HRM. Furthermore, universities should include green HRM in their curricula to teach and imbue the culture of greening in the workplace.

Furthermore, firms should adopt strategic human resource management policies based on the GHRM concept, focusing on promoting green employees.

6.1. Limitations of the Study

1. This research was negatively affected by the difficulty in accessing the responses as a result of the paranoia factor evident in Nigeria. This made it challenging to obtain the whole copy of the questionnaire distributed to the respondents.

2. The researcher’s geographic reach was constrained because it only looked at workers in Lagos State manufacturing industries.

3. Conclusively, the researcher encountered challenges in constantly convincing the respondents to fill the online questionnaire. However, all the mentioned limitations did not hinder the success or generalization of this research, this is because of the extra effort made by the researcher and the research assists.

6.2. Suggestions for Further Studies

Since this study focuses solely on the manufacturing sector in Nigeria, future studies should explore green HRM and corporate sustainability in other sectors such as educational, oil and gas, agricultural, and so on.

Furthermore, future researchers should adopt a longitudinal design in order to observe the consistency of variables studied in terms of time since the current study made use of the cross-sectional design.

Future researchers should have a moderating variable in order to explain how a moderating role can affect the variables.