Next Article in Journal
Research on the Evolution of Global Electronics Trade Network Structure since the 21st Century from the Chinese Perspective
Previous Article in Journal
Research Trends and Directions on Real Estate Investment Trusts’ Performance Risks
Previous Article in Special Issue
Happy and Engaged Workforce in Industry 4.0: A New Concept of Digital Tool for HR Based on Theoretical and Practical Trends
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 6
10.3390/su15065435
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Systematic Review

Companies Could Benefit When They Focus on Employee Wellbeing and the Environment: A Systematic Review of Sustainable Human Resource Management

by
Sergio Manuel Madero-Gómez
1,*,
Yanira Lizeth Rubio Leal
2,
Miguel Olivas-Luján
3 and
Mohd Yusoff Yusliza
4
1
Tecnologico de Monterrey, School of Business, Av. Garza Sada 2501, Monterrey 64849, NL, Mexico
2
EGADE Business School, San Pedro Garza García 66269, NL, Mexico
3
Management & Marketing, Pennsylvania Western University Clarion, 840 Wood St, Clarion, PA 16214, USA
4
Faculty of Business, Economics and Social Development, Universiti Malaysia Terengganu, Kuala Nerus 21030, Terengganu, Malaysia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(6), 5435; https://doi.org/10.3390/su15065435
Submission received: 31 December 2022 / Revised: 7 February 2023 / Accepted: 15 February 2023 / Published: 20 March 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Moving towards Maturity in Sustainable Human Resource Management)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

Purpose: We reviewed the scholarly literature that examines the role of sustainable practices for employee health and the environment. The study also examined the negative impact of the workplace on the wellbeing of employees and its indirect effect on Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Design/methodology/approach: This was a literature review with data from the Scopus scholarly database. We found 65 results from 2008 to 2022. After eliminating duplicates and other search fields, we were left with 30 final documents. Findings: The study provided evidence that sustainable practices in the workplace increase the wellbeing of employees and reduce pollution in the environment, while also benefiting company viability. Research limitations/implications: Using other database sources besides Scopus and Web of Science could yield additional results. Practical implications: The study highlighted the need for organizations to develop sustainable HRM practices to minimize the negative effects on employee wellbeing and capitalize on the savings that are generated through sustainable initiatives. This finding could contribute to better corporate practices and the further development of research in this field. Originality/value: The HRM literature revealed the importance of having employee wellbeing practices which increase work productivity and engagement. This also empirically proved the positive impact of companies that implement sustainable HRM practices. This research provided a theoretical model that depicts the interrelation between corporate viability, employee wellbeing, and sustainable human resource management.

1. Introduction

With the increasing pollution in the world and the negative effects of climate change, the study of sustainability and wellbeing has drawn increasing attention in recent years. In 1987, the United Nations adopted the term “sustainability” to denote meeting the needs of the present without compromising the needs of the future; nevertheless, unmeasured consumption and destructive corporate practices have led to 6.8 deaths per year due to air pollution [1]. In order to address the urgency of these changes in the environment, the United Nations developed 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) [2]. For instance, Goal 3 “excellent health and well-being” encourages access to health services and endeavors to reduce illnesses from pollution. Similarly, we can consider Goal 11, “sustainable cities and communities”, which aims to decrease by 75% the greenhouse gas emissions generated by cities [3,4].
The Organization for Economic and Cooperation Development (OECD) releases the “How’s Life” report every two years [5], which provides a country-by-country account of national wellbeing level indicators. Their most recent report emphasized that while OECD countries typically perform reasonably well, most of these nations could still take further steps to enhance the general population’s wellbeing.
An area of research that crosses many disciplines, including economics, industrial and organizational psychology, anthropology, and sociology, is the study of wellbeing at work. As a result, it might be difficult to conceptualize precisely what is meant by wellbeing; to illustrate, the OECD has 11 areas, focused on (1) wellbeing, (2) income and wealth, (3) job and work quality, (4) housing, (5) health, (6) knowledge and skills, (7) environmental quality, (8) safety, (9) work–life balance, (10) social connections, and (11) civil engagement. Furthermore, while it is widely acknowledged that having a job improves one’s physical and mental health compared to being unemployed [6], the connection between work and wellbeing is far from clear-cut, with poor employee satisfaction being a major cause of absences from the workplace.
On the other hand, as a developing field, sustainable human resource management (sustainable HRM) enables companies to raise employee standards of living in order to promote societal sustainability. However, when it comes to some high-performance work systems (HPWPs), the negative impact of work on employee health hinders their professional development and personal growth [7].
SDGs such as SDG 3 (good health and wellbeing), SDG 5 (gender equality), SDG 8 (decent work and economic growth), and SDG 13 (climate action) support sustainable HRM. In particular, SDG 5 establishes and encourages opportunities for lifelong equity learning to achieve gender equality. SDG 8 strives to foster full and productive employment; sustained, inclusive, and sustainable economic growth; and decent work for everyone, including adequate workplace training, non-discrimination in hiring, fair and non-discriminatory pay, and flexible work schedules that promote job stability and allow for an adequate work–life balance. SDG 11 (sustainable cities and communities) seeks to reduce pollution by promoting socially responsible labor practices in cities.

2. Method

The review and conceptual analysis involved two main steps: first, we created a database by conducting an extensive and methodical search to find and extract all pertinent literature about sustainable human resource management and employee wellbeing that had been published in the field’s peer-reviewed academic journals. The results of a content analysis were then reported, with a focus on the United Nation’s SDGs.
To discover the major research papers dealing with sustainable HRM and wellbeing, we comprehensively searched for articles in significant journals in the fields of HRM, organizational behavior, sustainability, management, personnel behavior, and wellbeing. The results from several topic search queries in Scopus with the most recent update on 1 November 2022 were combined to create the input data for the review. The primary information source was a database search on Google Scholar and Scopus online. To find the papers, sustainable HRM scholars examined a preliminary set of search terms. Five search terms and their variations were used, including: (1) Sustainable Human Resource Management and Wellbeing, (2) Wellbeing HRM and Sustainable, (3) Wellbeing and Human Capital and Sustainable, (4) Human Capital and Sustainable, (5) Wellbeing Human Resource Management and Sustainability.
This procedure resulted in 65 hits on Scopus, or 56 papers after we eliminated duplicates. We then identified the articles from the specific fields of sustainable HRM and wellbeing in business and management, removing those from other fields besides HRM, resulting on 30 final documents (Appendix A).
The article entitled “The new dimensions of collaboration: Mega and intelligent communities, ICT and wellbeing” described the relationships between human capital, wellbeing, and the environment, explaining them as drivers of a high-level growth in mega communities [8]. This topic is a recent development, but authors have begun to produce more publications related to sustainable HRM and wellbeing, and the subject is staring to generate public interest (see Figure 1). With 91 citations, we next address the paper “A review of limitations of GDP and alternative indices to monitor human wellbeing and to manage eco-system functionality” by Giannetti, which introduced the possible indicators of wellbeing [9].
In total, the authors in our findings had published only one paper related to sustainability: “Assessing local-scale inclusive wealth: a case study of Sado Island, Japan”. Nonetheless, the journal review presented a different context with significantly more publications related to sustainable HRM and wellbeing. Specifically, the journal Sustainability presented 7 papers, including “Human Capital Sustainability Leadership to promote sustainable development and healthy organizations: A new scale” [10]. Next, we found that the Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration yielded 2 papers, including one of the most cited papers in sustainable HRM research: “The synthesis effect of high performance work systems on organizational performance and employee harm” [11]. Additionally, we found that the Contemporary Studies in Economic and Financial Analysis journal, the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, the Journal of Cleaner Production, the Problems and Perspectives in Management journal, and Social Sciences yielded 2 papers each, which, compared with other fields, was a relatively low number (see Table 1).
In this research, we did not find many different countries with relevant publications; the lack of papers per country was noticeable when compared with other fields (see Figure 2).
We observed that there were 13 main universities around the world that focused on sustainable HRM and wellbeing, including the Institut National de la Recherche and the University Pau et de Pays. The main contributor was the University of Bari, which produced four papers in this field (see Figure 3).
The most cited papers in sustainable HRM and wellbeing field are in Table 2.

3. Findings

This research tackled growing worries that long-term wellbeing is being harmed by the global destruction of nature by traditional practices. We systematically investigated the relationship between human capital and sustainable development as shown by an improvement in the United Nations’ inclusive wealth indicator. In recent years, many scholars have considered human assets as fundamental to achieving not only economic goals, but also sustainable goals [20]. The health and wellness of the workforce are therefore more important than ever. Sustainable HRM practices must link organizational sustainability with human resource management that focusses on developing healthy and resilient employees to create strong and sustainable practices in organizations.
The importance of sustainable HRM practices and wellbeing relies on solving the SDGs that are essential to addressing the main challenges the world is currently facing. Hence, it is imperative that organizations consider human capital development as a competitive advantage [21], since employees are undoubtedly the main asset of each company.
In 2019, 9 million premature deaths were related to pollution [22], and companies are considered the main polluters [23]. In accordance with the United Nations, we must act with urgency against negative environmental impacts. SDG 13 primarily focuses on climate action, enhancing climate change education and awareness raising. There is a growing trend of companies focusing on the triple bottom line, with sustainability not only involving the financial performance of the company but also being enhanced by aiding the environment and society. This shared value creation addresses SDG 3 (good health and wellbeing), SDG 5 (gender equality), SDG 8 (decent work and economic growth), SDG 11 (sustainable cities).
By reviewing all the literature related to sustainable HRM practices, we could observe how everything is interconnected. As systems theory explains [24], one element impacts the others; in the case of sustainable HRM practices, employees´ increased consciousness of the environment leads to increased actions by the company to improve the climate, which ultimately also benefits the employees, generating shared value. This beneficial cycle is explained in the following CV–EW–SHRM model (see Figure 4).

4. Sustainable HRM Practices and Their Influence on Wellbeing

International studies have revealed that initiatives to enhance healthcare delivery can succeed or fail depending on how employers address worker concerns via motivation, leadership, and support [25]. Practices involving the suitable modification of HRM strategies and techniques enable them to fulfil the organization’s long-term financial, ecological, and social goals while managing negative feedback and unforeseen side effects. Sustainable leadership involves emphasizing human resources; considering their growth, development, and health; and safeguarding the relationship between leaders and followers, organizations, and sustainability. This strategy can encourage positive and profitable development processes for people and businesses from a primary preventive perspective to address the difficulties of authentic and sustainable human resource development [10]. Besides sustainable leadership, sustainable HRM processes, including selection, foster a sustainable culture through the relationship between quality management practices and plant competitiveness. The influence of sustainable methods on plant competitiveness is fundamental to achieving green environments at work.
Employees need fair compensation, as established by SDG 4 (decent work); many countries have set minimum wages, whose goal is to ensure that workers have enough money to meet their fundamental needs [26]. However, it has been claimed that minimum wages are insufficient to increase employee satisfaction. Fair compensation involves more than compliance with the law. In an employment relationship, compensation is defined as “all forms of cash returns and tangible services and benefits employees receive” [27]. Financial returns include a person’s base pay and immediate and long-term incentives. Benefits, including insurance, paid sick days and vacation time, pension schemes, and employee discounts, are considered “tangible services and benefits”; these incentives are not offered in many jobs, and the law exempts corporations from providing them. Still, job satisfaction and wellbeing are related to fair compensation. The UN’s SDG 8 promotes sustained, inclusive, and sustainable economic growth and decent work.

5. Indicators to Monitor Human Wellbeing and to Manage Sustainable HRM Environments

Companies must provide stakeholders with pertinent, timely, and understandable information about their operations through corporate reports and indicators. By providing this information, companies fulfil their commitments under the ethics of responsibility and create sustainable policies that allow the flourishment of employees and their wellbeing. Peter Drucker stated that you cannot improve what you do not measure [28]. Indicators allow us to understand any opportunity area and enhance results, claims, etc.
Sustainability involves implementing practices that promote the economy, a better society, and a better environment. The assumption that economic expansion is always synonymous with an improved quality of life leads to the misuse of the gross domestic product (GDP) as a measure of public wellbeing. Nonetheless, wellbeing must be measured with indicators besides the GDP to ensure employees’ health, security, and job satisfaction. Job satisfaction is one of the measures of employee wellness and a critical organizational indicator [29]. It varies depending on specific factors and the nature of the work, for example, the type and quantity of compensation, promotions, coworkers, and the organizational context [30]. Indicators such as gender equality in companies (SDG5) or wellbeing indicators are a necessity that helps companies achieve a positive influence on employees and the environment.

6. Stakeholders as a Driver for Sustainable HRM

In recent years, stakeholders have been putting pressure on companies to take responsibility for the externalities they cause in the environment and society. Stakeholders have a direct influence on and immediate interest in a company’s performance [31], as stakeholders have claims, properties, and rights related to the company [32], representing an opportunity to develop sustainable practices centered on employee wellbeing and a possible effective way to address business needs. Numerous articles have accepted a link between HR procedures and employee wellbeing. However, the majority have argued that it is far from evident. For instance, it is acknowledged that job quality matters [4]. Still, there are significant knowledge gaps regarding what qualifies as high-quality work concerning wellbeing and how that may differ between individuals and across organizational contexts.
Additionally, we need to understand the nature of the linkages between crucial human and organizational traits, interventions, and wellbeing outcomes for people and their employers [33]. Employees are fundamental to achieving economic growth [20] and increasing sustainability through a sustainable HRM policy in companies. However, companies are not taking enough responsibility for the labor conditions that affect the wellbeing of employees and the environment.
Despite the importance of human assets, other types of stakeholders, such as customers, have transcended the realm of a specific niche [34] and are engaged in sustainability and conscious of the environmental difficulties and the societal issues addressed by the UN SDGs [35]. Sustainability labeling empowers customers to make sustainable consumption decisions because of their awareness of a company’s externalities, which calls for new regulations for firms to serve as change agents [36]. Still, customers demand more than a label and have focused on fair and sustainable labor. According to [37], stakeholders’ perceptions of the impact of sustainability significantly influence organizational policies, sustainability, and accounting reports. Hence, consumers require sustainability reports and new labor policies for companies with unfair labor conditions.
Stakeholders demand that socially responsible actors establish environmental, social, and governance (ESG) actions that promote shared value, because they are aware of collective impact. Social problems arise and persist because of a complex combination of activities and omissions by corporations, governments, and society. Our literature review found that many factors affect consumer acceptance, such as perceptions of a company’s sustainability, proximity to the source of the product, and waste aversion.

7. Conclusions

This paper revealed increasing interest and diverse outlets, demonstrating the complexity and diversity of the wellbeing in sustainable HRM field concerning the UN’s SDGs. The idea of wellbeing and its connection to the SDGs of the UN provide a way to create sustainable directions. Most studies from our review of the literature concentrated on distinct, prominent issues while ignoring the connections between wellbeing, sustainable HRM, and SDGs. We observed how researchers approached the sustainability–SDGs link to address complex interconnected challenges. Still, these factors have drifted apart over time, and businesses do not consider how they can contribute most effectively to addressing the UN’s SDG challenges. The key stakeholders’ roles, such as customers, industries, and employee policy frameworks, are more nuanced and complex than the simple dominance of economic and environmental interests. The company’s role in influencing wellbeing and a healthy environment is crucial in achieving the SDGs. Additional studies and analyses are required to explore the expectations of important stakeholders and actors for each SDG in the context of wellbeing and HRM.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.M.M.-G. and Y.L.R.L.; methodology, S.M.M.-G., Y.L.R.L.; validation, S.M.M.-G., M.O.-L. and M.Y.Y.; formal analysis, S.M.M.-G. and Y.L.R.L.; investigation, S.M.M.-G. and Y.L.R.L.; writing—original draft preparation, S.M.M.-G. and Y.L.R.L.; writing—review and editing, M.O.-L. and M.Y.Y.; project administration, S.M.M.-G.; funding acquisition, S.M.M.-G. and M.Y.Y. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

AuthorsTitleYear
Al-Thawadi M., Sallabi F., Awad M., Shuaib K., Naqvi M.R., and Ben Elhadj H.
[38]		 A-SHIP: Ontology-Based Adaptive Sustainable Healthcare Insurance Policy2022
Chowdhury P. and Shumon R.
[39]		 Minimizing the Gap between Expectation and Ability: Strategies for SMEs to Implement Social Sustainability Practices2020
Cooke F.L., Dickmann M., and Parry E.
[40]		 Building sustainable societies through human-centred human resource management: emerging issues and research opportunities2022
Crichton R. and Shrivastava P.
[41]		 Sustaining human resource via aesthetic practices2017
Di Fabio A. and Peiró J.M.
[10]		 Human capital sustainability leadership to promote sustainable development and healthy organizations: A new scale2018
Edgar F.
[42]		 Emotions and Environments: Schadenfreude at Work2022
Gatti U., Scharrer A., Migliaccio G.C., and Bogus S.M.
[43]		 Using the workforce’s physiological strain monitoring to enhance social sustainability of construction.2012
Giannetti B.F., Agostinho F., Almeida C.M.V.B., and Huisingh D.
[9]		 A review of limitations of GDP and alternative indices to monitor human wellbeing and to manage eco-system functionality2015
Giovannini E.
[44]		 Using ‘Equitable and Sustainable Wellbeing’ to Build the Post-MDGs Framework2013
Hussain K., Abbas Z., Gulzar S., Jibril A.B., and Hussain A.
[14]		 Examining the impact of abusive supervision on employees’ psychological wellbeing and turnover intention: The mediating role of intrinsic motivation2020
Jaskeviciute V., Stankeviciene A., Diskiene D., and Savicke J.
[19]		 The relationship between employee well-being and organizational trust in the context of sustainable human resource management2021
Lepeley M.-T.
[45]		 The Human Centered Sustainable Quality Culture in Organizations2021
Macassa G. and Tomaselli G.
[46]		 Socially responsible human resources management and stakeholders’ Health Promotion: A conceptual paper2020
Malik F., McKie L., Beattie R., and Hogg G.
[15]		 A toolkit to support human resource practice2010
Manuti A., Giancaspro M.L., Molino M., Ingusci E., Russo V., Signore F., Zito M., and Cortese C.G.
[12]		 “Everything Will Be Fine”: A Study on the Relationship between Employees’ Perception of Sustainable HRM Practices and Positive Organizational Behavior during COVID192020
Mariappanadar S. and Kramar R.
[11]		 Sustainable HRM: The synthesis effect of high performance work systems on organisational performance and employee harm2014
McCalman J., Campbell S., Jongen C., Langham E., Pearson K., Fagan R., Martin-Sardesai A., and Bainbridge R.
[16]		 Working well: A systematic scoping review of the Indigenous primary healthcare workforce development literature2019
Meyer F.
[47]		 The Gap to Achieve the Sustainability of the Workforce in the Chilean Forestry Sector and the Consequences over the Productivity of System2019
Muñoz-Pascual L. and Galende J.
[18]		 Ambidextrous Relationships and Social Capability as Employee Well-Being: The Secret Sauce for Research and Development and Sustainable Innovation Performance2020
Passerini K. and Wu D.
[8]		 The new dimensions of collaboration: Mega and intelligent communities, ICT and wellbeing2008
Pearson L.J., Kashima Y., and Pearson C.J.
[48]		 Clarifying protected and utilitarian values of critical capital2012
Piwowar-Sulej K. and Bak-Grabowska D.
[49]		 Non-Permanent Employment and Employees’ Health in the Context of Sustainable HRM with a Focus on Poland2020
Porter T.B. and Reischer R.
[50]		 A Complexity Perspective on CSR and Sustainability: Theory and a Longitudinal Case Study2018
Prince R., Vihari N.S., and Rao M.K.
[51]		 Examining the Effects of Sustainable HRM on Work Wellbeing: The Role of Voice Behaviour and Trust in Management2022
Shahid M.N. and Hamid S.N.A.
[52]		 Impact of Sustainable Human Resource Management Practices on Secondary School Teacher Job Performance: A Conceptual Framework of Teacher Psychological Ownership2019
Smaliukiene R. and Bekesiene S.
[17]		 Towards Sustainable Human Resources: How Generational Differences Impact Subjective Wellbeing in the Military?2020
Sorribes J., Celma D., and Martínez-Garcia E.
[53]		 Sustainable human resources management in crisis contexts: Interaction of socially responsible labour practices for the wellbeing of employees2021
Tordera N., Peiró J.M., Ayala Y., Villajos E., and Truxillo D.
[13]		 The lagged influence of organizations’ human resources practices on employees’ career sustainability: The moderating role of age2020
van Krevel C.
[54]		 Does natural capital depletion hamper sustainable development? Panel data evidence2021
Yoshida Y., Matsuda H., Fukushi K., Ikeda S., Managi S., and Takeuchi K.
[55]		 Assessing local-scale inclusive wealth: a case study of Sado Island, Japan2018

References

  1. Landrigan, P.J. Air pollution and health. Lancet Public Health 2017, 2, e4–e5. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  2. Leal, F.W.; Azeiteiro, U.; Alves, F.; Pace, P.; Mifsud, M.; Brandli, L.; Caeiro, S.; Disterheft, A. Reinvigorating the sustainable development research agenda: The role of the sustainable development goals (SDG). Int J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 2018, 25, 131–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Vaidya, H.; Chatterji, T. SDG 11 sustainable cities and communities. In Actioning the Global Goals for Local Impact; Springer: Singapore, 2020; pp. 173–185. [Google Scholar]
  4. László, K.D.; Pikhart, H.; Kopp, M.S.; Bobak, M.; Pajak, A.; Malyutina, S.; Salavecz, G.; Marmot, M. Job insecurity and health: A study of 16 European countries. Soc. Sci. Med. 2010, 70, 867–874. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Durand, M. The OECD better life initiative: How’s life? and the measurement of well-being. Rev. Income Wealth 2015, 61, 4–17. Available online: https://www.oecd.org/wise/better-life-initiative.htm (accessed on 1 December 2022). [CrossRef]
  6. Waddell, G.; Burton, A.K. Is Work Good for your Health and Well-Being? The Stationery Office (TSO): Norwich, UK, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  7. Mariappanadar, S. Health harm of work from the sustainable HRM perspective: Scale development and validation. Int. J. Manpow. 2016, 37, 924–944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Passerini, K.; Wu, D. The new dimensions of collaboration: Mega and intelligent communities, ICT and wellbeing. J. Knowl. Manag. 2008, 12, 79–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Giannetti, B.F.; Agostinho, F.; Almeida, C.M.V.B.; Huisingh, D. A review of limitations of GDP and alternative indices to monitor human wellbeing and to manage eco-system functionality. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 87, 11–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Di Fabio, A.; Peiró, J.M. Human Capital Sustainability Leadership to promote sustainable development and healthy organizations: A new scale. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Mariappanadar, S.; Kramar, R. Sustainable HRM: The synthesis effect of high performance work systems on organisational performance and employee harm. Asia-Pac. J. Bus. Adm. 2014, 6, 206–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Manuti, A.; Giancaspro, M.L.; Molino, M.; Ingusci, E.; Russo, V.; Signore, F.; Zito, M.; Cortese, C.G. “Everything will be fine”: A study on the relationship between employees’ perception of sustainable HRM practices and positive organizational behavior during COVID19. Sustainability 2020, 12, 10216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Tordera, N.; Peiro, J.M.; Ayala, Y.; Villajos, E.; Truxillo, D. The lagged influence of organizations’ human resources practices on employees’ career sustainability: The moderating role of age. J. Vocat. Behav. 2020, 120, 103444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Hussain, K.; Abbas, Z.; Gulzar, S.; Jibril, A.B.; Hussain, A. Examining the impact of abusive supervision on employees’ psychological wellbeing and turnover intention: The mediating role of intrinsic motivation. Cogent Bus. Manag. 2020, 7, 1818998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Malik, F.; McKie, L.; Beattie, R.; Hogg, G. A toolkit to support human resource practice. Pers. Rev. 2010, 39, 287–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. McCalman, J.; Campbell, S.; Jongen, C.; Langham, E.; Pearson, K.; Fagan, R.; Martin-Sardesai, A.; Bainbridge, R. Working well: A systematic scoping review of the Indigenous primary healthcare workforce development literature. BMC Health Serv. Res. 2019, 19, 767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Smaliukiene, R.; Bekesiene, S. Towards sustainable human resources: How generational differences impact subjective wellbeing in the military? Sustainability 2020, 12, 10016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Muñoz-Pascual, L.; Galende, J. Ambidextrous relationships and social capability as employee well-being: The secret sauce for research and development and sustainable innovation performance. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 3072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Jaskeviciute, V.; Stankeviciene, A.; Diskiene, D.; Savicke, J. The relationship between employee well-being and organizational trust in the context of sustainable human resource management. Probl. Perspect. Manag. 2021, 19, 118–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Spooner, K.; Kaine, S. Defining sustainability and human resource management. Int. Employ. Relat. Rev. 2010, 16, 70–81. [Google Scholar]
  21. App, S.; Merk, J.; Büttgen, M. Employer branding: Sustainable HRM as a competitive advantage in the market for high-quality employees. Manag. Rev. 2012, 23, 262–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Landrigan, P.J.; Fuller, R.; Acosta, N.J.; Adeyi, O.; Arnold, R.; Baldé, A.B.; Bertollini, R.; Bose-O’Reilly, S.; Boufford, J.I.; Breysse, P.N.; et al. The Lancet Commission on pollution and health. Lancet 2018, 391, 462–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Fernández-Vázquez, J.S. Analysing the environmental websites of the world’s greatest polluters: A multimodal ecolinguistic approach. Econ. Res.-Ekon. Istraž. 2021, 34, 2692–2711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Von Bertalanffy, L. An outline of general system theory. Br. J. Philos. Sci. 1950, 1, 134–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Larkins, S.; Panzera, A.; Beaton, N.; Murray, R.; Mills, J.; Coulter, K.; Stewart, R.; Hollins, J.; Matich, P.; Baird, D. Regional Health Workforce Planning in North Queensland: Starting with the End in Mind; Health Workforce Australia: Adelaide, Australia, 2014.
  26. Gülal, F.; Ayaita, A. The impact of minimum wages on well-being: Evidence from a quasi-experiment in Germany. J. Happiness Stud. 2020, 21, 2669–2692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Milkovich, G.M.; Newman, J.M.; Gerhart, B. Compensation, 11th ed.; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  28. Clayton, A.F.; Rogerson, J.M.; Rampedi, I. Integrated reporting vs. sustainability reporting for corporate responsibility in South Africa. Bull. Geogr. Socio-Econ. Ser. 2015, 29, 7–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Welbourne, J.L.; Eggerth, D.; Hartley, T.A.; Andrew, M.E.; Sanchez, F. Coping strategies in the workplace: Relationships with attributional style and job satisfaction. J. Vocat. Behav. 2007, 70, 312–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Shabnam, S.; Sarker, A.R. Impact of CSR and internal marketing on employee job satisfaction and organisational commitment: A case study from export-oriented SMEs in Bangladesh. World J. Soc. Sci. 2012, 2, 24–36. [Google Scholar]
  31. Eikeset, A.M.; Mazzarella, A.B.; Davíðsdóttir, B.; Klinger, D.H.; Levin, S.A.; Rovenskaya, E.; Stenseth, N.C. What is blue growth? The semantics of “Sustainable Development” of marine environments. Mar. Pol. 2018, 87, 177–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. López-Concepción, A.; Gil-Lacruz, A.I.; Saz-Gil, I. Stakeholder engagement, Csr development and Sdgs compliance: A systematic review from 2015 to 2021. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2022, 29, 19–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Boselie, P.; Dietz, G.; Boon, C. Commonalities and contradictions in HRM and performance research. Hum. Res. Manag. J. 2005, 15, 67–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Brécard, D.; Hlaimi, B.; Lucas, S.; Perraudeau, Y.; Salladarré, F. Determinants of demand for green products: An application to eco-label demand for fish in Europe. Ecol. Econ. 2009, 69, 115–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Weber, E.U. Breaking cognitive barriers to a sustainable future. Nat. Hum. Behav. 2017, 1, 0013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Torma, G.; Thøgersen, J. A systematic literature review on meta sustainability labeling—What do we (not) know? J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 293, 126194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Laine, M.; Tregidga, H.; Unerman, J. Sustainability Accounting and Accountability, 3rd ed.; Routledge: London, UK, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  38. Al-Thawadi, M.; Sallabi, F.; Awad, M.; Shuaib, K.; Naqvi, M.R.; Ben Elhadj, H. A-SHIP: Ontology-Based Adaptive Sustainable Healthcare Insurance Policy. Sustainability 2022, 14, 1917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Chowdhury, P.; Shumon, R. Minimizing the gap between expectation and ability: Strategies for smes to implement social sustainability practices. Sustainability 2022, 12, 6408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Cooke, F.L.; Dickmann, M.; Parry, E. Building sustainable societies through human-centred human resource management: Emerging issues and research opportunities. Int. J. Hum. Res. Manag. 2022, 33, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Crichton, R.; Shrivastava, P. Sustaining human resource via aesthetic practices. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 153, 718–726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Edgar, F. Emotions and Environments: Schadenfreude at Work. Humanist. Manag. J. 2022, 7, 95–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Gatti, U.; Scharrer, A.; Migliaccio, G.; Bogus, S.M. Using workforce’s physiological strain monitoring to enhance social sustainability of construction. J. Archit. Eng. 2013, 19, 179–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Giovannini, E. Using ‘Equitable and Sustainable Wellbeing’to Build the Post-MDGs Framework. IDS Bull. 2013, 44, 89–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Lepeley, M.T. The Human Centered Sustainable Quality Culture in Organizations. In Human Centered Organizational Culture; Routledge: London, UK, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  46. Macassa, G.; Tomaselli, G. Socially responsible human resources management and stakeholders’ Health Promotion: A conceptual paper. South Eastern Eur. J. Public Health 2020, 15, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Meyer, F. The Gap to Achieve the Sustainability of the Workforce in the Chilean Forestry Sector and the Consequences over the Productivity of System. In Congress of the International Ergonomics Association; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 380–391. [Google Scholar]
  48. Pearson, L.J.; Kashima, Y.; Pearson, C.J. Clarifying protected and utilitarian values of critical capital. Ecol. Econ. 2012, 73, 206–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Piwowar-Sulej, K.; Bąk-Grabowska, D. Non-Permanent Employment and Employees’ Health in the Context of Sustainable HRM with a Focus on Poland. Soc. Sci. 2020, 9, 117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Porter, T.B.; Reischer, R. A complexity perspective on CSR and sustainability: Theory and a longitudinal case study. Int. J. Des. Nat. Ecodyn. 2018, 13, 82–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Prince, R.; Vihari, N.S.; Rao, M.K. Examining the Effects of Sustainable HRM on Work Wellbeing: The Role of Voice Behaviour and Trust in Management. In Managing Risk and Decision Making in Times of Economic Distress, Part B; Emerald Publishing Limited: Bingley, UK, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  52. Shahid, M.N.; Hamid, S.N. Impact of Sustainable Human Resource Management Practices on Secondary School Teacher Job Performance: A Conceptual Framework of Teacher Psychological Ownership. Int. J. Innov. Creat. Change 2019, 6, 217–241. Available online: https://www.ijicc.net/images/Vol6Iss2/6216_Shahid_2019_TD_R.pdf (accessed on 1 December 2022).
  53. Sorribes, J.; Celma, D.; Martínez-Garcia, E. Sustainable human resources management in crisis contexts: Interaction of socially responsible labour practices for the wellbeing of employees. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2021, 28, 936–952. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. van Krevel, C. Does natural capital depletion hamper sustainable development? Panel data evidence. Resour. Pol. 2021, 72, 102087. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Yoshida, Y.; Matsuda, H.; Fukushi, K.; Ikeda, S.; Managi, S.; Takeuchi, K. Assessing local-scale inclusive wealth: A case study of Sado Island, Japan. Sustain. Sci. 2018, 13, 1399–1414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 15 05435 g001
Figure 1. Main authors in wellbeing research.
Figure 1. Main authors in wellbeing research.
Sustainability 15 05435 g001
Sustainability 15 05435 g002
Figure 2. Main countries as contributors for sustainable HRM and wellbeing.
Figure 2. Main countries as contributors for sustainable HRM and wellbeing.
Sustainability 15 05435 g002
Sustainability 15 05435 g003
Figure 3. Main universities as contributors to sustainable HRM and wellbeing research.
Figure 3. Main universities as contributors to sustainable HRM and wellbeing research.
Sustainability 15 05435 g003
Sustainability 15 05435 g004
Figure 4. CV–EW–SHRM model: corporate viability, employee wellbeing, and sustainable human resource management model.
Figure 4. CV–EW–SHRM model: corporate viability, employee wellbeing, and sustainable human resource management model.
Sustainability 15 05435 g004
Table 1. Main journals with sustainable HRM and wellbeing studies.
Table 1. Main journals with sustainable HRM and wellbeing studies.
JournalNumber of Papers
Sustainability (Switzerland)7
Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration2
Contemporary Studies in Economic and Financial Analysis2
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health2
Journal of Cleaner Production2
Problems and Perspectives in Management2
Social Sciences2
Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing1
BMC Health Services Research1
Table 2. Most cited papers in sustainable HRM and wellbeing field.
Table 2. Most cited papers in sustainable HRM and wellbeing field.
AuthorsTitleYearCited by
Giannetti B.F., Agostinho F., Almeida C.M.V.B., and Huisingh D.
[9]		 A review of limitations of GDP and alternative indices to monitor human wellbeing and to manage eco-system functionality201591
Di Fabio A. and Peiró J.M.
[10]		 Human capital sustainability leadership to promote sustainable development and healthy organizations: A new scale201887
Mariappanadar S. and Kramar R.
[11]		 Sustainable HRM: The synthesis effect of high-performance work systems on organisational performance and employee harm201437
Manuti A., Giancaspro M.L., Molino M., Ingusci E., Russo V., Signore F., Zito M., and Cortese C.G.
[12]		 “Everything will be fine”: A study on the relationship between employees’ perception of sustainable HRM practices and positive organizational behavior during COVID19202018
Passerini K. and Wu D.
[8]		 The new dimensions of collaboration: Mega and intelligent communities, ICT and wellbeing200815
Tordera N., Peiró J.M., Ayala Y., Villajos E. and Truxillo D.
[13]		 The lagged influence of organizations’ human resources practices on employees’ career sustainability: The moderating role of age202013
Hussain K., Abbas Z., Gulzar S., Jibril A.B., and Hussain A.
[14]		 Examining the impact of abusive supervision on employees’ psychological wellbeing and turnover intention: The mediating role of intrinsic motivation202013
Malik F., McKie L., Beattie R. and Hogg G.
[15]		 A toolkit to support human resource practice201011
McCalman J., Campbell S., Jongen C., Langham E., Pearson K., Fagan R., Mar-tin-Sardesai A. and Bainbridge R.
[16]		 Working well: A systematic scoping review of the Indigenous primary healthcare workforce development literature201910
Smaliukiene R. and Bekesiene S.
[17]		 Towards sustainable human resources: How generational differences impact subjective wellbeing in the military?20209
Muñoz-Pascual L. and Galende J.
[18]		 Ambidextrous relationships and social capability as employee well-being: The secret sauce for research and development and sustainable innovation performance20208
Jaskeviciute V., Stankeviciene A., Diskiene D. and Savicke J.
[19]		 The relationship between employee well-being and organizational trust in the context of sustainable human resource management20217
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Madero-Gómez, S.M.; Rubio Leal, Y.L.; Olivas-Luján, M.; Yusliza, M.Y. Companies Could Benefit When They Focus on Employee Wellbeing and the Environment: A Systematic Review of Sustainable Human Resource Management. Sustainability 2023, 15, 5435. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15065435

AMA Style

Madero-Gómez SM, Rubio Leal YL, Olivas-Luján M, Yusliza MY. Companies Could Benefit When They Focus on Employee Wellbeing and the Environment: A Systematic Review of Sustainable Human Resource Management. Sustainability. 2023; 15(6):5435. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15065435

Chicago/Turabian Style

Madero-Gómez, Sergio Manuel, Yanira Lizeth Rubio Leal, Miguel Olivas-Luján, and Mohd Yusoff Yusliza. 2023. "Companies Could Benefit When They Focus on Employee Wellbeing and the Environment: A Systematic Review of Sustainable Human Resource Management" Sustainability 15, no. 6: 5435. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15065435

APA Style

Madero-Gómez, S. M., Rubio Leal, Y. L., Olivas-Luján, M., & Yusliza, M. Y. (2023). Companies Could Benefit When They Focus on Employee Wellbeing and the Environment: A Systematic Review of Sustainable Human Resource Management. Sustainability, 15(6), 5435. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15065435

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop