Next Article in Journal
Plantain (Plantago lanceolata L.) as an Alternative Forage to Build Resilience and Reduce the Environmental Footprint of Grazing Dairy Systems in Temperate Northern Climates: A Review
Next Article in Special Issue
Assessment and Forecasting of the Environmental Sustainability Statuses of Innovative Enterprises in the Context of Sustainable Development
Previous Article in Journal
Evaluating the Interactive and Transformative Role of Innovation, Education, Human Capital and Natural Resources Policies in Protecting and Sustaining Environmental Sustainability
Previous Article in Special Issue
How the Digital Economy Is Revolutionizing Marketing Management and Driving Sustainable Development
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 17
Issue 7
10.3390/su17073132
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

Green Human Resource Management and Organizational Performance: A Systematic Review †

by
Leanna Lawter
1,* and
Petra Garnjost
2
1
Department of Business, Wheaton College, 26 E. Main Street, Norton, MA 02667, USA
2
Fakultät für Wirtschaftswissenschaften, Hochschule für Technik und Wirtschaft des Saarlandes, Campus Rotenbühl, Waldhausweg 14, 66123 Saarbrücken, Germany
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
This article is a revised and expanded version of a paper entitled “Lawter, L.; Garnjost, P. Green HRM and Organizational Performance: A Systematic Literature Review” which was presented at 5th International Human Resource Conference, ISEG, Lisboa, Portugal, 28–29 February 2024.
Sustainability 2025, 17(7), 3132; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17073132
Submission received: 13 February 2025 / Revised: 29 March 2025 / Accepted: 31 March 2025 / Published: 1 April 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Management for Sustainable Future: Challenges, Innovations and Organizational Performance)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The purpose of this study was to conduct a systematic literature review to investigate how GHRM impacts organizational performance measures related to social impact, environmental performance, sustainable performance, firm performance, and/or green innovation. Following the PRISMA 2020 protocol process, a total of 180 studies were identified that met the search criteria. Utilizing AI tools and Excel, a bibliometric analysis was conducted that assessed publication trends such as the year of publication, academic journal, study country, and industry. The second stage of analyses assessing the reported results on the key performance measures was conducted on 136 of the 180 studies where full texts were available to the authors. The analysis showed that there has been a large increase in the number of publications over the last three years, particularly in Asia and the Middle East. Further, the results show that GRHM has a direct positive impact on environmental performance, sustainability goals/sustainable performance, and green innovation. The impact of GHRM on firm financial performance is less clear as this relationship is more indirect than direct. This paper is one of the first reviews that examines the relationship between strategic organizational-level performance measures and GHRM. The review also identifies gaps in the literature, recommendations for best practices in measurement, and future directions for research.

1. Introduction

Over the last 10 years, there has been a considerable increase in research on Green Human Resource Management (GHRM). GHRM is associated with the key functional HR practices—recruitment and selection, training and development, performance management and appraisal, compensation and rewards, and employee involvement [1,2,3]. In many organizations, GHRM is viewed as an important component of raising the environmental consciousness of employees and fostering more eco-friendly behaviors, thereby contributing to the need for organizations to become more sustainable. Much of the research to date has been focused on the relationship between GHRM and employee outcomes, such as organizational citizenship and employee engagement [4], job performance [5], and employee green behaviors [6]. However, until recently, there has not been a demonstrable impact of GHRM on organizational-level goals and performance measures. Within the last few years, more research has attempted to quantify the impact of GHRM on specific organizational performance measures, such as social impact, environmental performance, economic performance/firm performance, and green innovation. To provide a more comprehensive understanding of the recent research related to organizational-level outcomes, the current research provides a systematic literature review investigating the relationship between GHRM practices and the impact on organizational performance. The goal of the research is to (1) analyze the publication trends by assessing journals, the countries of studies, and industries, (2) identify clusters of research based on types of organizational performance outcomes, (3) summarize the results and key findings on the impact of key Green HRM practices on organizational performance, (4) identify limitations of the current studies, and (5) identify gaps in the literature and propose areas of future research. The contribution of this research addresses a gap in the literature by specifically investigating organizational-level outcomes as opposed to employee-level outcomes (per Xie and Lau [7]).

2. Literature Review

2.1. Green Human Resource Management

Green Human Resource Management (GHRM) emerged in the late 1990s as a means of addressing environmental management mainly in the manufacturing and hospitality industry segments. The focus was on addressing environmental issues that arose from business production by hiring employees who were more aware of environmental issues [8]. As companies and society became more concerned with the impact that businesses have on the environment, GHRM was viewed as having a broader impact on achieving environmental performance goals at the organizational level, particularly for those industries who have a measurable impact on the environment [1].
Organizations have developed a number of Green HRM practices that can be employed across the organization [1,2,3,9]:
  • Green recruitment and selection, which employ processes that identify prospects who have a higher awareness of environmental issues and engage in eco-friendly behaviors [10].
  • Green training, which focuses on increasing awareness of environmental issues, training employees on best environmental job practices, and development of employees’ sensitivity to organizational environmental issues [11].
  • Green performance management and appraisal, which incorporate individual-based goals centered around environmentally focused behaviors that contribute to better individual job performance and organizational environmental performance [12].
  • Green compensation and rewards, which incorporate both monetary performance-based and non-monetary rewards which are related to job performance goals [13].
  • Green employee involvement, which refers to the degree to which an employee is committed to the environmental direction of the organization and their job. This includes job satisfaction, employee engagement, organizational citizenship, and perceived organizational support [13].
GHRM focuses more on individual employee behavior and attitudes as the driver to meet environmental goals [4]. By implementing GHRM, organizations can influence individual employee outcomes and indirectly impact organizational sustainability objectives [14].

2.2. Sustainability and Organizational Performance Measures

In the last few years, more focus has been placed on integrating GHRM into organizational-level strategies. GHRM has emerged as a mechanism through which organizations can drive their internal strategic goals of reducing their impact on the environment [8]. As a result, more research has examined the impact GHRM has on other organizational performance goals linked to environmental performance, such as green innovation, sustainable performance, and financial performance. This new approach involves identifying a more strategic purpose for GHRM that also addresses external demands on organizations to address broader social and environmental issues [15].
This can be interpreted as a reaction on the corporate level to the increasing global environmental concerns regarding the consequences of climate change, pollution, and other global environmental challenges [16,17]. Organizations can enhance their competitive advantage by integrating GHRM practices [18]. Initially driven by rich industrial nations such as the US or members of the European Union, legal requirements and industry standards have been passed in the last two decades mandating a reduction in the environmental impact across sectors [19]. Several emerging markets such as China, Malysia, Vietnam, Indonesia, and India have enacted industry-specific legislation as a means of reducing the impact of several “high polluting” industries such as the construction industry, the manufacturing sector, the hospitality industry, and healthcare [5,20,21]. Adopting GHRM supports the ability of organizations to meet these legal requirements but also leads to cost reduction due to more efficient use of materials [19]. Most commonly in the manufacturing sector, studies measure environmental performance by analyzing energy efficiency, waste reduction, and the decrease in greenhouse gas emissions [17]. In the construction sector, the focus is on the reduction of energy consumption [16]. In addition to these measures, the hospitality sector also monitors water usage, as well as employee and guest participation in green initiatives [22]. Many sectors are also using environmental performance metrics in alliance with sustainability certification criteria such as LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design), ISO 14001 (sustainable water management) [23], ISO 14064 (Greenhouse Gas Accounting) [24], and ISO 50001 (Energy Management Systems) [25]. Across sectors, the rationale for using environmental performance as an organizational outcome measure is the alignment of environmental measures, environmental policies and regulations, and related economic organizational goals. The usage of measurable indicators also allows for the monitoring of the effectiveness of green practices [17,19,22].
As organizations have become more focused on addressing broader sustainable goals in addition to environmental goals, GHRM practices have aligned with overall organizational performance. Sustainable performance in organizations is measured via three key areas: social impact, environmental impact, and economic impact. The studies using sustainable performance as their metric also refer to these three areas of sustainability as a Triple Bottom Line Approach [18,26]. Evaluating social, environmental, and economic outcomes is strengthened by stakeholders’ and employees’ expectations for ethical practices and meaningful work [18,27]. From a corporate perspective, it also allows long-term environmental and social objectives to balance short-term economic performance [26,28]. Further, sustainable performance metrics are compliant with regulatory requirements and have a positive impact on corporate reputation [28]. For environmental aspects, the following sustainable performance measures and environmental performance measures are identical: energy efficiency, waste management, and CO2 emission. In addition, the catalog of sustainable measures includes not only cost efficiency and profitability [28], but also enhancements of workplace safety and satisfaction through green workplace initiatives and green initiatives addressing local communities [26].
GHRM also stimulates green innovation through employee behaviors and attitudes. Green innovation is perceived as an indicator of an organization’s ability to develop new products, services, or processes that are environmentally friendly [29,30]. Green innovation is credited with increasing a company’s competitive advantages by attracting eco-conscious customers and employees [29,31]. Examples of green innovation include using eco-friendly materials [32], the adoption of energy efficient technologies and practices to optimize resource usage and reduction of environmental impact [33], and the usage of big data analytics and digital tools to push green innovation in processes and products [30,31]. Green innovation is often viewed as a moderator between GHRM and sustainable organizational outcomes [32,34]. The possible explanation for this relationship stems from bridging the gap between policy-level GHRM initiatives and practical outcomes. It transforms environmental objectives into measurable results [30].
GHRM is also viewed as one of the pillars for achieving organizational goals that is rooted in social impact, encouraging green leadership [35], green employee engagement and organizational commitment [35], green citizenship [36], and green organizational culture [37,38]. CEOs’ environmental beliefs and leadership support are seen as key drivers for GHRM implementation [2,39], which, in turn, impacts employee outcomes, such as green employee engagement, green citizenship, and employee commitment. Using green leadership as a measure for the success of GHRM practices also identifies to what extent green leadership shapes organizational culture and guides the strategic implementation of GHRM [40,41]. Further, it directly influences employee engagement in eco-friendly practices [42] and facilitates organizational change by integrating GHRM into broader organizational strategies [2,40]. Metrics for green leadership are training and development programs focusing on environmental awareness and sustainable management practices, collaborative initiatives where leaders foster teamwork and innovation for eco-friendly solutions, and the empowerment of employees to participate in green initiatives through guidance and support from leadership [40,41,42]. Like green innovation, green leadership also serves as a moderator between GHRM and organizational outcomes, as it ensures that GHRM practices are effectively implemented and lead to measurable results [41,43] by aligning employee behavior with organizational goals [2,39].

2.3. Previous Reviews of GHRM and Organizational Performance

Using the SCOPUS database, we found eight systematic literature reviews that investigated the relationship between GHRM and at least one organizational performance measure. These reviews take three different focuses in their review. Three of the reviews [14,27,44] focus on assessing the current state of research and publication. All three of these articles summarize the publication and research trends as the answer to their main research question. One review [45] summarizes the theoretical foundations being used in the research to explain the relationship between employee green behaviors and sustainable performance. They identified 24 distinct theories that explain the GHRM-to-organizational-performance relationship and developed five clusters of theories which are appropriate for varying levels in the organization. The remaining four reviews take different approaches in their research questions. Alketbi and Rice [46] focused primarily on the relationship between GHRM and employee outcomes as it relates to green behaviors and the impact on ecological/environmental performance. Tahir and colleagues [47] specifically investigate the relationship between employee green behaviors and environmental performance. Miah, Szabo-Szentgroti, and Walter [48] address the antecedents of implementing effective GHRM practices and how they impact individual employee outcomes as well as environmental performance. Lastly, Sahan, Jaaffar, and Osabohien [49] look at the relationship between GHRM, energy-saving behaviors, and environmental performance.
Our research takes a different direction than these previous eight reviews as we seek to identify the different organizational-level performance measures that are being used in the GHRM research, develop clusters of performance outcomes, and report the key findings across all these outcome measures. Our contribution to the current interest in GHRM is to inform researchers of the current practices in assessing organizational performance by addressing the limitations in the current research and recommending future best practices.

2.4. Research Questions

The overarching question queries what areas of organizational performance have been studied, particularly as it relates to sustainability goals and whether implementing these Green Human Resource Management practices impacts organizational performance. Specifically, this study aims to answer the following research questions:
  • RQ1: What are the latest research trends regarding the impact of GHRM on organizational performance?
  • RQ2: What organizational performance measures and clusters of measures are being used in the research?
  • RQ3: What are the key findings on the impact of GHRM on organizational performance?
  • RQ4: What are the limitations and gaps of the current research?
  • RQ5: What are future directions for research and the best practices that can improve future research?
To address these questions, we conducted a systematic literature review using the PRISMA 2020 protocol (see Supplementary Materials) and AI tools to conduct a bibliometric analysis of the literature. This research is unique in that it solely addresses how GHRM impacts different measures of organizational performance using AI tools for bibliometric analysis.

3. Methodology

3.1. Search Process

We conducted a systematic literature review in October 2024 to answer the research questions on GHRM and organizational performance. The methodology that we employed was three pronged. First, we conducted the systematic literature search in accordance with the best practices detailed by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA 2020) protocol process [50]. The PRISMA (2020) protocol provides an established process to search databases, initially identify relevant articles, and screen the resulting articles based on key inclusion and exclusion criteria. For our article search, we used the SCOPUS database, a comprehensive database of academic research with a very thorough coverage of the social sciences and business. The first step in our systematic review process was to identify search terms for article retrieval search. We searched for the search terms (“Green Human Resource Management” or “Green Human Resources Management” or “Green HRM” or “GHRM”) AND (“performance”) in the article title, keywords, and the article abstract. This resulted in 474 articles. We then applied inclusion criteria through SCOPUS that identified (1) articles with a year of publication between 2016 and 2024; (2) articles with the “article” document type (all other types of documents were omitted in order to retrieve peer-reviewed published studies); (3) articles in one of six subject areas: Management and Accounting; Social Sciences; Environmental Science; Energy; Economics, Econometrics, and Finance; and Psychology; and (4) articles published in the English language. This resulted in 221 articles. The full records including abstracts and keywords were downloaded for these 221 articles into Excel.
The second part of the inclusion/exclusion process was to eliminate those articles which did not use an organizational-level performance variable in the study. To do this, we manually reviewed titles, keywords, and abstracts to assess the research questions and main results for the studies. Based on this analysis, we excluded 41 articles which did not use an organizational-level performance variable as the outcome variable in their study. This included review articles, theory articles, and empirical studies that used organizational performance in their keywords but used an employee outcome variable, such as employee performance, employee green behaviors, or leadership, as the primary variable of study. This resulted in 180 studies. The bibliometric analysis was conducted on these 180 studies as there was enough information in their abstracts and keywords to answer Research Question 1 regarding the publication trends and Research Question 2 regarding the outcome variables and clustering of outcome variables. We included all 180 in this stage of the bibliometric analysis as we were concerned about the loss of information and potential bias in the analysis due to restricted access to some full-text articles.
The third screening step was to retrieve full-text articles for in-depth analysis of the key findings (Research Question 3), the gaps and limitations in the research (Research Question 4), and recommendations for further research (Research Question 5). Full-text articles were retrieved through institutional databases, Google Scholar, ResearchGate, and open-source publishers. This resulted in 136 full-text articles to be used in the key findings review (see Figure 1).

3.2. Bibliometric Analysis

The bibliometric analysis was conducted using three different AI tools to facilitate the coding of the studies, develop thematic clusters, and synthesize the results from the SCOPUS records of the 180 studies. Using Excel AI Analytics, the summary records of each study were coded for organizational performance variables, industry sector, country of study, and methodology based on information in the abstract and author-supplied keywords. For those records missing information, where available, the authors used the full-text article to identify these data. This resulted in complete data for all but one record, which was missing industry information. Excel AI Analytics was also used to assess the research and publication trends (RQ1) using the coded summary data from SCOPUS. A cluster analysis was then performed using CoPilot (Microsoft’s AI tool) on the organizational performance data to assist the development of cluster themes (RQ2).
To answer the research questions regarding key findings (RQ3), limitations of the current research and gaps in the current research (RQ4), and future directions for research (RQ5), the authors used the 136 full-text pdfs which were retrieved in step three of the study identification process. NotebookLM (Google AI tool) was then used to synthesize the research results from the full-text pdfs around 5 key cluster themes: environmental performance, firm performance, sustainable performance, green innovation, and social impact. The authors used these results to develop key findings for the systematic review.

4. Results

4.1. Publication Trends

4.1.1. Year of Research Publication

In the last 3 years, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of published studies on the impact of GHRMP on organizational performance. From 2022 to present, there have been 138 studies published in top-tier journals, compared to 42 studies published in the previous six years. Put in other terms, of the current studies that examine organizational performance measures as the outcome variable, 76.6% have been published in the last three years. This indicates an increased interest in assessing what the impact of GHRM is beyond the traditional employee outcomes with a new focus on organizational measures that are related to sustainability, innovation, and firm performance (see Table 1).

4.1.2. Journals Where Research Is Published

The types of journals where research articles on GHRM and organizational performance are being published cover a wide array of specializations and disciplines. Table 2 shows the journals which have published three or more publications on GHRM and organizational performance. Seven of the most popular publishing outlets are focused on sustainability-related and environmental-related research. A total of 53 articles were published in these journals. The other seven journals where GHRM–organizational performance research is being published represent a broader range of journals focused on human-resources-related research, research related to business metrics, and general business research. The top outlets for publication are predominantly ranked as Q1 or Q2 in Scimago (www.scimagojr.com), with Sustainability and the Journal of Cleaner Production being the two top outlets for research on GHRM and organizational performance (see Table 2).

4.1.3. Regions and Countries Where Research Is Conducted

Another significant trend in publications is the number of studies conducted in emerging markets or markets with minimal environmental regulations. Over sixty-five percent of the studies on GHRM and organizational performance were conducted in Asia, with the next most frequent regions of publication being the Middle East (16.7%) and Africa (7.2%) (see Table 3).
Within these regions, there is a concentration of studies in specific countries. The countries in Asia where the most studies were conducted were Pakistan (43 studies), China (18 studies), India (16), Malaysia (14), and Indonesia (10 studies). In the Middle East, the most studies were conducted in Saudi Arabia (eight studies), Egypt (five studies), and Palestine (five studies) (see Table 4). It is interesting to note that very few studies were conducted in a single country in Europe. Three studies were conducted in Spain, and two studies were conducted in Italy and Turkey, respectively. No studies were conducted in the United States.
These trends align with the movement of manufacturing to Asia over the last ten years. Pakistan, China, India, Malaysia, and Indonesia are leading exporters of textiles, sporting goods, electronics, and pharmaceuticals [51]. Although the US and Germany also have large manufacturing bases (ranked 2 and 4, respectively [51]), the regulatory environments in the EU and US are much stricter with regard to environmental impact.

4.1.4. Industry Sectors Where Research Is Conducted

The single industry sectors in which the highest number of studies were conducted were manufacturing (56 studies), hospitality (27 studies), and healthcare (12 studies). A number of studies were conducted with a cross-section of companies and industries (39 studies) (see Table 5).

4.2. Measures of Organizational Performance

Measurement of Organizational Performance

The studies identified for this systematic review all investigated the impact of GHRM on one or more organizational performance measures. Over ninety percent of the studies (n = 168) used a survey that was completed by a single person. Across all the studies, only seven used data that were obtained from external sources (such as Dunn and Bradstreet, New York, NY, USA, environmental reporting agencies, or financial statements). Four of the studies were qualitative studies.
Environmental performance was the most frequently used outcome variable. Environmental performance was measured either using a scale that measured different dimensions, such as productivity, resource consumption, and regulatory compliance, or using metrics collected from non-survey sources.
Sustainable performance was the second most common outcome variable. This was measured using a scale that measured the different dimensions of sustainability, such as economic performance, environmental performance, and social impact on employee behaviors. Green innovation was also a common outcome variable. Like sustainable performance, green innovation was also measured using a scale that assessed improvements in products, processes, or management practices.
Surprisingly, firm performance was only measured in 19 of the 180 studies. In six of these studies, firm performance was measured using a third-party data source, such as financial reports or third-party databases. The remaining studies used a survey to capture firm performance. Below are the organizational performance measures used both as outcome variables and as mediating or moderating variables (see Table 6).
When assessing the impact of GHRM on organizational performance, most studies combined organizational performance measures to assess multiple outcomes and/or how some variables act as mediators or moderators in the direct relationship. Using a cluster analysis, organizational measures were grouped into five primary organizational performance areas: environmental performance, sustainable performance, firm performance, green innovation, and social impact. Firm performance included economic-based measures such as supply chain management and organizational competitiveness. Social impact included social or employee-based measures such as green leadership, green organizational culture, organizational citizenship, and employee green behaviors. Sustainability performance and environmental performance were the most frequent sole measures of organizational performance. In 103 of the 180 studies, two or more organizational performance measures were used to assess the impact of GHRM. Green innovation and social impact were often used as mediating or moderating variables in assessing the GHRM-to-organizational-performance relations (see Figure 2).

4.3. Findings of Key Relationships

4.3.1. Theoretical Underpinnings of Relationships

The theoretical underpinnings of the relationship between GHRM and organizational performance vary across the twelve clusters. The theories fall into three areas (see Figure 3).
The first includes theories which are more prominent in strategic management theory and explain how GHRM practices result in better organizational performance. The first of these is the resources-based view theory (RBT) [52]. This theory proposes that valuable, unique, and rare resources within the firm can lead to a competitive advantage. Many times, this is coupled with green innovation or social measures, such as green leadership or green organizational culture, as one of the unique mediating drivers impacting environmental performance. Related to this perspective, the Natural-Resource-Based View theory [53] is also often used to support the use of GHRM as a tool to improve environmental performance. Within this theoretical structure, natural resources and concern for the natural environment drive behaviors that lead to an environmentally conscious competitive advantage. Employee green behaviors, green leadership, green organizational culture, and green innovation all become the drivers which lead to better organizational performance within this model.
The second group of theories is rooted in explaining the relationship between individual employee behaviors and their impact on organizational performance, particularly how social impact measures, such as green leadership and green organizational culture, act as mediators between employee behaviors and organizational performance. One often-used theory is the Ability–Motivation–Opportunity theory [54]. This theory proposes that social factors, such as employee green attitudes and behaviors, promote employees’ ability and motivation to engage in pro-environmental behaviors if the organization gives them the opportunity in their work roles. This, in turn, facilitates better environmental performance for the firms. Similarly, three social theories, Social Cognitive Theory, Social Identity Theory, and Social Exchange Theory, are also used in the same context to explain the relationship between employee attitudes and behaviors and the impact those behaviors have on organizational performance. Social Exchange Theory posits that individuals will adhere to a norm of fairness where these actions will result in reciprocity [55]. Social Identity Theory explains how employees engage in group or collective behavior that is congruent with their personal identity [56]. Social Exchange Theory in particular is used to explain how green leadership and green organizational culture mediate employee green behaviors and organizational performance. Social Cognitive Theory [57] posits that individuals have agency over their own behaviors, and their collective agency can be impactful, thus explaining how individual eco-conscious behaviors can result in developing a green organizational culture and thereby impact the environmental and sustainable performance of an organization.
The third theoretical underpinning for GHRM research is rooted in the Stakeholder theory [58]. Within the GHRM–organizational performance relationship, the Stakeholder theory is used to explain how different stakeholder groups can apply pressure on the organization to enact pro-environmental policies and processes (such as GHRM practices) that have an impact on organizational performance. The Stakeholder theory is particularly relevant in assessing the impact of external stakeholders on environmental performance measures, sustainability measures such as the triple bottom line, and financial performance measures.

4.3.2. Relationship Between GHRM and Performance

GHRM has a positive impact on organizational performance, but with varying degrees of impact based on the performance measure. There is evidence that GHRM practices have a strong positive relationship with improved environmental performance. Green recruiting, training, and linking expected behaviors to employee performance management support changes in employee behaviors that lead to more green behaviors, such as conserving energy, reducing waste, and participating in environmental initiatives and compliance activities. The result is a direct effect on environmental performance. This result was found across a number of studies using a variety of methods to measure environmental performance [16,59].
Social impact measures of organizational performance as operationalized in the studies are closely related to human-resource-based employee outcomes. This includes employees’ attitudes and behaviors, their commitment to the organization or environmental initiatives, and employee engagement. Other social measures seen in a number of studies are green leadership and green organizational culture. The relationship between GHRM practices and these social measures is that they act as a strong mechanism by which GHRM impacts other organizational performance measures [60,61].
There is also support for the relationship between GHRM and sustainable performance. GHRM positively impacts both environmental performance and more general sustainability goals that incorporate economic savings and eco-friendly employee and customer behaviors. Sustainable performance is often linked with social organizational measures, such as green leadership and employee green behaviors, as these act as the conduit for GHRM to impact organizational performance [62,63].
GHRM has also been shown to support the creation and implementation of green innovation in organizations. Green innovation is operationalized both as an outcome variable and as a mediating/moderating variable. GHRM has a positive impact on the development of green innovation through social organizational variables such as green leadership, employee green behaviors, and green organizational culture. Employees’ increased awareness and adherence to GHRM practices cultivate a workforce that is more knowledgeable and motivated to develop and implement new environmentally friendly products and processes that positively impact environmental performance and sustainable performance [64,65]. Green innovation acts as a conduit to better organizational performance.
The impact of GHRM on firm performance is more nuanced as there is no strong support for this direct relationship. Some studies use a reduction in costs or resource usage to measure firm economic performance. Others use surveys to measure improved productivity, organizational competitiveness, or even improved brand reputation as an economic measure of improved performance. Supply chain management is another measure that is used to assess efficiency and operational performance [66]. However, when actual financial performance is used as the outcome variable, there is no significant relationship between GHRM and firm performance [67].
GHRM is an important business strategy whereby organizations can achieve strategic sustainability/environmental goals through employee behaviors. Overall, GHRM can act as an important strategic practice to drive green environmental performance, green innovation, and sustainability. GHRM should be viewed as an integrative approach that needs to be supported by a supportive green culture and investing in green employee recruitment and development for it to be impactful. By implementing GHRM, organizations can enhance their overall performance as well as develop a workforce that is committed to having an impact on the environment.

5. Discussion

5.1. Discussion of Results

The number of publications that investigate the relationship between GHRM and organizational performance has significantly increased in the last three years. Most of the studies were conducted in Asia and the Middle East across the manufacturing, hospitality, and healthcare sectors. Over fifty percent of the studies use environmental performance as the outcome measure, with an additional thirty percent using sustainable performance (which also incorporates environmental performance) as an outcome measure. The reason for this is likely two-fold. First, environmental performance is fairly straightforward to measure as it relates to use of resources. Second, the use of environmental performance as the outcome of interest points to the fact that organizations want to show that their GHRM policies and procedures are having a positive impact on their environment.
One clear outcome from the results of our study is that GHRM is being used as a bottom-up approach to addressing how to best develop practices and policies that support organizations achieving sustainability goals and metrics. Most of the studies focus on demonstrating the relationship between implementing GHRM practices and improved environmental performance. In examining a single study, many of the studies identify one of the shortcomings of GHRM research as an inability to identify the mechanisms between GHRM and organizational performance. However, taken as collective knowledge, human capital and intellectual capital are two key mechanisms which repeatedly are identified as mediators in the relationship. Having a workforce that is knowledgeable, skilled, engaged, and motivated regarding sustainability is critical to the success of this relationship. Many of the studies also identify a social measure, such as green leadership, green organizational culture, or employee green attitudes and/or behaviors, as the mediator between GHRM practices and organizational performance. Many of these connections point to the importance of employee buy-in and engagement with GHRM practices, particularly as they relate to collective agency in enacting pro-environmental practices.
Another important aspect to consider is that, in these studies, GHRM acts as a compliance tool for meeting environmental goals set by internal and external stakeholders. Pressure from internal and external stakeholders is driving the adoption of GHRM [5,68]. Customers, investors/shareholders, and regulators are pressuring organizations to come up with ways to address environmental performance [68,69]. Many of the empirical studies on the relationship between GHRM and environmental and sustainable performance are being conducted in emerging markets with a focus on manufacturing, hospitality, and healthcare. Developing an environmentally conscious workforce has a direct impact on the day-to-day environmental practices/behaviors within the organization, which result in a direct impact on environmental outcomes, such as resource usage, compliance with green processes, and green product development. As the regulatory environments around environmental impact and sustainability are less stringent in emerging countries (say, compared to the EU’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive or ESG Sustainability reporting) and the United States (e.g., the proposed Rules to Enhance and Standardize Climate-Related Disclosures for Investors by the SEC) [69], organizational change is being driven from the bottom up through employee behaviors as opposed to from the top down by external regulatory agencies and senior executives. While employees are not the ones setting organizational strategies on environmental sustainability, they are an important aspect impacting a number of green organizational outcomes. However, integrating GHRM as a standalone initiative is not sufficient for achieving better organizational performance. Organizations need to view GHRM as one of many strategic initiatives that can be integrated into their overall business strategy and operations. The research also points to the important part that the social dimensions, both individually and collectively, have in enacting these policies and initiatives.
The lack of a direct impact on financial performance is not surprising. Financial performance is impacted by a large number of factors that have no relationship to human-resources-related factors (such as interest rates, debt servicing, and market fluctuations, to name a few). Financial measures that can be attributable to human-related factors may also not be influenced by environmental best practices. However, there is an indirect effect that comes from developing a competitive advantage or reputation for sustainability that can translate into higher sales.
One interesting result from the research review is the small number of studies conducted in Europe and the absence of studies from the US. One possible explanation is that strict environmental regulations and reporting standards in the EU and US reduce the perception that organizations need to implement GHRM [69]. If standards are being met, organizations are less motivated to incorporate new human resource policies which may garner marginal results. Additionally, given the stronger emphasis on corporate social responsibility, more organizations are focused on the social dimensions of sustainability efforts, such as diversity and equity initiatives, and less on environmental issues [69]. Another explanation for the abundance of papers in Asia in particular is that, over the last 10 years, manufacturing has shifted to Asia away from the US and the EU. Concerns about the environmental impact of manufacturing may be more salient for organizations’ international customers and regulators that expect adherence to environmental benchmarks [70]. Being able to point to a number of studies that show that GHRM is effective in meeting environmental benchmarks helps substantiate the relevance of GHRM.

5.2. Research Limitations

The most significant limitation across almost all the research identified in our systematic literature review is rooted in the use of surveys to collect data for the studies. All but seven studies used a survey to collect data from the employee/manager overseeing the implementation of GHRM and/or overseeing the assessment of environmental/sustainable performance. These studies relied on self-reported data from one or more employees to assess multiple outcomes at the employee level and organizational level. This suggests a strong common method variance effect [71] resulting in strong bias in the strength of the GHRM-to-organizational-performance effect size.
Common method variance in these studies occurs in three ways. First, the survey respondent wants to substantiate the impact that they are having on organizational performance, resulting in an attribution bias and social desirability bias. Second, there is a priming effect, leading the survey respondent to possibly overstate the effects between the difference outcome variables. Lastly, the effect size of the relationship between GHRM and the outcome variables is likely inflated due to being measured at the same time by the same person [71]. As a result, the actual impact of GHRM on organizational performance outcomes may in fact be much smaller and non-significant.
Related to this is the inherent bias in the measurement tools which are being used to capture the constructs. Many of the data in the identified studies were collected via a wide variety of scales. Many of the scales were shortened or repurposed without a thorough validation study. There is a lack of uniformity in measures, which could enable a researcher to estimate a meta-effect size for the GHRM-to-organizational-performance relationship.
A second limitation in the studies we identified is that there is a lack of longitudinal studies examining the long-term effects of GHRM practices on organizational performance. All these studies were collected at a single point in time. If data were collected from multiple sources over multiple time points, this would minimize the common method variance in the study, giving us the ability to estimate the actual impact of the relationship. Future studies need to incorporate multiple data sources and rely less on surveys and more on objective data over a period of time to better quantify the effect that GHRM has on organization performance. It could also be that financial data may be reflective of the indirect impact that pro-environmental practices have on developing competitive advantage for organizations.
We also acknowledge the limitations in our research based on our methods of analysis. We solely used SCOPUS as the source of our search, which we acknowledge limited our ability to source studies from small or new journals. We also did not have access to Web of Science, which could have increased the number of studies we found that met our inclusion criteria. We did carry out a review of which large publishers in the social sciences/business area were on SCOPUS as a bias check. Another limitation in this analysis was our ability to access full-text articles for a number of the more recent studies. We tried to compensate for this bias by using the information provided by SCOPUS to assess RQ1 and RQ2. We believe that this mitigated the bias in publication trends analysis to some degree.
We also acknowledge that we used AI tools for analytical purposes only. We were very careful not to use AI in the development of the paper. In the bibliometric analysis, we used Excel’s AI for trend analysis, but also checked this with SPSS 26 where appropriate. Clusters were developed manually and then entered into CoPilot (Free version) as a means of creating a visualization of the data. NotebookLM was used to extract data from each full-text paper, which the authors then synthesized to create the systematic review.

5.3. Gaps in the Research and Future Directions

Most studies analyzed the impact of GHRM practices on environmental or sustainable performance based on employee perception. There is a significant gap in investigating the impact of GHRM on financial measures and social performance measures that can be quantified through objective sources. Additionally, while environmental and economic performance have been part of a number of research studies, the social dimension of sustainability is often measured more as organizational culture or leadership instead of employee well-being/health, community development and impact, and ethical labor practices. Future research needs to take a more holistic and integrated approach in assessing the multiple dimensions of sustainability with particular attention to the social impact dimension and to the financial implications.
The one performance measure where there is insufficient evidence to support the GHRM-to-organizational-performance relationship is firm performance. Much of the lack of support centers around the infrequency of firm performance’s inclusion in studies and how firm performance information is measured. The reality is that making the argument that GHRM practices impact the bottom line and improve profitability is difficult to support given the complexity of profitability. It may be that we need to agree on economic measures that are more accessible for measurement, such as cost reduction, rather than looking at a firm’s overall finance performance.
From a conceptual perspective, there is a lack of a comprehensive framework which can be used to address future directions of research. This points to the need for developing a comprehensive GHRM framework with a better explanation of the contextual factors (such as external and internal pressures and national culture) and the mechanisms that can help explain the relationships and their complex interactions, including theories that explain the relationships. Many of the theories which have been used to date explain a specific relationship, yet no one theory can explain the complexity of the interrelationships across multiple levels of the organization and across different stakeholders. An important aspect of this framework should be its usefulness in guiding practitioners on how to best implement impactful GHRM practices that impact sustainability performance—environmental, economic, and social. By adopting a comprehensive approach to environmental management, organizations can improve their overall performance and contribute to a more sustainable future.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/su17073132/s1, File S1: PRISMA Statement. Reference [72] is cited in the Supplementary Materials.

Author Contributions

Both authors were involved in the ideation of this research, the literature search, data analyses, and the drafted and revised work. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

Data were collected from published research in the public domain.

Acknowledgments

This article is a revised and expanded version of a paper entitled “Lawter, L.; Garnjost, P. Green HRM and Organizational Performance: A Systematic Literature Review” which was presented at 5th International Human Resource Conference, ISEG, Lisboa, Portugal, 28–29 February 2024 [73].

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Renwick, D.; Jabbour, C.J.C.; Muller-Camen, M.; Redman, T.; Wilkinson, A. Contemporary developments in green (environmental) HRM scholarship. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2016, 2, 114–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Ren, S.; Tang, G.; Jackson, S.E. Green human resource management research in emergence: A review and future directions. Asia Pac. J. Manag. 2018, 35, 769–803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Peerzadah, S.A.; Mufti, S.; Nazir, N.A. Green human resource management: A review. Int. J. Enhanc. Res. Manag. Comp. Appl. 2018, 7, 790–795. [Google Scholar]
  4. Murillo-Ramos, L.; Huertas-Valdivia, I.; García-Muiña, F.E. Antecedents, Outcomes, and Boundaries of Green Human Resource Management: A Literature Review. RAE Rev. Adm. Empresas 2023, 63, e2022-0268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Liu, C.; Xin, L.; Li, J. Environmental regulation and manufacturing carbon emissions in China: A new perspective on local government competition. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 29, 36351–36375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Zhu, J.; Tang, W.; Wang, H.; Chen, Y. The influence of green human resource management on employee green behavior—A study on the mediating effect of environmental belief and green organizational identity. Sustainability 2021, 13, 4544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Xie, H.; Lau, T.C. Evidence-based green human resource management: A systematic literature review. Sustainability 2023, 5, 10941. [Google Scholar]
  8. Paulet, R.; Holland, P.; Morgan, D. A meta-review of 10 years of green human resource management: Is Green HRM headed towards a roadblock or a revitalisation? Asia Pac. J. Hum. Resour. 2021, 59, 159–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Mishra, P. Green human resource management: A framework for sustainable organizational development in an emerging economy. Int. J. Organ. Anal. 2017, 25, 762–788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Pham, D.D.T.; Paille, P. Green recruitment and selection: An insight into green patterns. Int. J. Manpow. 2020, 41, 258–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Aragão, C.G.; Jabbour, C.J.C. Green training for sustainable procurement? Insights from the Brazilian public sector. Ind. Commer. Train. 2017, 49, 48–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Ragas, S.F.P.; Tantay, F.M.A.; Chua, L.J.C.; Sunio, C.M.C. Green lifestyle moderates GHRM’s impact on job performance. Int. J. Prod. Perform. Manag. 2017, 66, 857–872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Saeed, B.B.; Afsar, B.; Hafeez, S.; Khan, I.; Tahir, M.; Afridi, M.A. Promoting employee’s pro-environmental behavior through green human resource management practices. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2019, 26, 424–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Joshi, A.; Kataria, A.; Rastogi, M.; Beutell, N.J.; Ahmad, S.; Yusoff, Y.M. Green human resource management in the context of organizational sustainability: A systematic review and research agenda. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 430, 139713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Kramar, R. Beyond strategic human resource management: Is sustainable human resource management the next approach? Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2014, 25, 1069–1089. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Kissi, E.A.; Segbenya, M.; Amoah, J.O. Environmental sustainability among workers in Ghana: The role of green human resource management. Heliyon 2024, 10, e33380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Ogiemwonyi, O.; Alam, M.N.; Alotaibi, H.S. Pathways toward environmental performance: Link between green human resource management, green innovation, and green behavior at work in manufacturing companies. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 425, 138949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Mahmood, F.; Nasir, N. Impact of green human resource management practices on sustainable performance: Serial mediation of green intellectual capital and green behaviour. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2023, 30, 90875–90891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Bangwal, D.; Tiwari, P.; Chamola, P. Green HRM, work-life and environment performance. Int. J. Environ. Workplace Employ. 2017, 4, 244–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Khoerunnisa, F.; Rahman, A. Literature Review: Regulation on Greenhouse Gas Emission Management in Indonesia. In International Conference on Business and Technology; Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2023; pp. 223–232. [Google Scholar]
  21. Mol, A.P. Environmental governance through information: China and Vietnam. Singap. J. Trop. Geogr. 2009, 30, 114–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Abdelwahed, N.A.A.; Al Doghan, M.A.; Soomro, B.A. Green Human Resource Management and Environmental Performance Among Hotels. Corp. Bus. Strat. Rev. 2024, 5, 241–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. ISO 14001:2015; Sustainable Water Management. International Standards Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2015.
  24. ISO 14064:2018; Greenhouse Gas Accounting. International Standards Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2018.
  25. ISO 50001:2018; Energy Management Systems. International Standards Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2018.
  26. Alenzi, M.A.S.; Jaaffar, A.H.; Khudari, M. The effect of GHRM on the sustainable performance of private companies in Qatar. Int. J. Manag. Sustain. 2023, 12, 289–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Akhtar, U.A.; Muhammad, R.; Bakar, L.J.A.; Parameswaranpillai, V.; Raj, B.; Khan, N.B. Green Human Resource Management Bibliometric Analysis of the Published Literature from 2008 to 2022. Int. J. Prof. Bus. Rev. 2023, 8, e0548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Khamdamov, A.; Tang, Z.; Hussain, M.A. Unpacking parallel mediation processes between green HRM practices and sustainable environmental performance: Evidence from Uzbekistan. Sustainability 2023, 15, 1434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Younis, Z.; Hussain, S. Green transformational leadership: Bridging the gap between green HRM practices and environmental performance through green psychological climate. Sustain. Futures 2023, 6, 100140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Zhao, W.; Huang, L. The impact of green transformational leadership, green HRM, green innovation and organizational support on the sustainable business performance: Evidence from China. Econ. Res. 2022, 35, 6121–6141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Imran, R.; Alraja, M.N.; Khashab, B. Sustainable performance and green innovation: Green human resources management and big data as antecedents. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 2021, 70, 4191–4206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Muisyo, P.K.; Qin, S. Enhancing the FIRM’S green performance through green HRM: The moderating role of green innovation culture. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 289, 125720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Sobaih, A.E.E.; Hasanein, A.; Elshaer, I. Influences of green human resources management on environmental performance in small lodging enterprises: The role of green innovation. Sustainability 2020, 12, 10371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Obeng, P.; Dogbe, C.S.K.; Boahen, P.A.N. Nexus between GHRM and organizational competitiveness: Role of green innovation and organizational learning of MNEs. Bus. Soc. Rev. 2023, 128, 275–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Ahmed, F.; Callaghan, D.; Arslan, A. A multilevel conceptual framework on green practices: Transforming policies into actionable leadership and employee behavior. Scand. J. Psychol. 2023, 65, 381–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Pham, N.T.; Tučková, Z.; Jabbour, C.J.C. Greening the hospitality industry: How do green human resource management practices influence organizational citizenship behavior in hotels? A mixed-methods study. Tour Manag. 2019, 72, 386–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Hooi, L.W.; Liu, M.S.; Lin, J.J.J. Green human resource management and green organizational citizenship behavior: Do green culture and green values matter? Int. J. Manpow. 2022, 43, 763–785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Roscoe, S.; Subramanian, N.; Jabbour, C.J.; Chong, T. Green human resource management and the enablers of green organisational culture: Enhancing a firm’s environmental performance for sustainable development. Bus. Strat. Environ. 2019, 28, 737–749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Jabeen, R.; Mehmood, S.; Ahmed, M.; Ghani, T.; Javaid, Z.K.; Popp, J. The Role of Green HRM on Environmental Performance: Mediating Role of Green Ambidexterity and Green Behavior and Moderating Role of Responsible Leadership. J. Chin. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2024, 15, 70–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Singh, S.K.; Del Giudice, M.; Chierici, R.; Graziano, D. Green innovation and environmental performance: The role of green transformational leadership and green human resource management. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2020, 150, 119762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Awan, F.H.; Dunnan, L.; Jamil, K.; Gul, R.F. Stimulating environmental performance via green human resource management, green transformational leadership, and green innovation: A mediation-moderation model. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2023, 30, 2958–2976. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Hameed, Z.; Khan, I.U.; Islam, T.; Sheikh, Z.; Naeem, R.M. Do green HRM practices influence employees’ environmental performance? Int. J. Manpow. 2020, 41, 1061–1079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Zihan, W.; Makhbul, Z.K.M.; Alam, S.S. Green human resource management in practice: Assessing the impact of readiness and corporate social responsibility on organizational change. Sustainability 2024, 16, 1153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Khan, S.; Faisal, S. Green Human Resource Management and Organizational Sustainability: A Systematic Literature Review and Bibliometric Analysis. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. Plan. 2023, 18, 1255–1262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Chowdhury, S.R.; Mendy, J.; Rahman, M. A systematic literature review of GHRM: Organizational sustainable performance reimagined using a new holistic framework. Sustainability 2023, 15, 7513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. AlKetbi, A.; Rice, J. The Impact of Green Human Resource Management Practices on Employees, Clients, and Organizational Performance: A Literature Review. Adm. Sci. 2024, 14, 78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Tahir, A.H.; Umer, M.; Nauman, S.; Abbass, K.; Song, H. Sustainable development goals and green human resource management: A comprehensive review of environmental performance. J. Environ. Manag. 2024, 370, 122495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Miah, M.; Szabó-Szentgróti, G.; Walter, V. A systematic literature review on green human resource management (GHRM): An organizational sustainability perspective. Cogent Bus. Manag. 2024, 11, 2371983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Sahan, U.M.H.; Jaaffar, A.H.H.; Osabohien, R. Green human resource management, energy saving behavior and environmental performance: A systematic literature review. Int. J. Energy Sect. Manag. 2024, 19, 220–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Moher, D. Updating guidance for reporting systematic reviews: Development of the PRISMA 2020 statement. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2021, 134, 103–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. World Data & Statistics Home Page. Available online: https://worldostats.com (accessed on 16 March 2025).
  52. Barney, J.B. Resource-based theories of competitive advantage: A ten-year retrospective on the resource-based view. J. Manag. 2001, 27, 643–650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Hart, S.L. A natural-resource-based view of the firm. AOM Rev. 1995, 20, 986–1014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Bos-Nehles, A.; Townsend, K.; Cafferkey, K.; Trullen, J. Examining the Ability, Motivation and Opportunity (AMO) framework in HRM research: Conceptualization, measurement and interactions. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 2023, 25, 725–739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Cropanzano, R.; Mitchell, M.S. Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. J. Manag. 2005, 31, 874–900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Ashforth, B.E.; Mael, F. Social identity theory and the organization. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1989, 14, 20–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Bandura, A. Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Asian J. Soc. Psychol. 2001, 52, 21–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Freeman, R.E.; Harrison, J.S.; Wicks, A.C. Managing for Stakeholders: Survival, Reputation, and Success; Yale University Press: New Haven, CT, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  59. Yusoff, Y.M.; Nejati, M.; Kee, D.M.H.; Amran, A. Linking green human resource management practices to environmental performance in the hotel industry. Glob. Bus. Rev. 2020, 21, 663–680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Jiang, Y.; Zaman, S.I.; Jamil, S.; Khan, S.A.; Kun, L. A triple theory approach to link corporate social performance and green human resource management. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2024, 26, 15733–15776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. He, J.; Morrison, A.M.; Zhang, H. Being sustainable: The three-way interactive effects of CSR, green human resource management, and responsible leadership on employee green behavior and task performance. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2021, 28, 1043–1054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Tanveer, M.I.; Yusliza, M.Y.; Ngah, A.H.; Khan, M.A.K. Mapping the link between CSR and sustainability performance through GHRM practices in hotel industry. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 429, 139258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Mousa, S.K.; Othman, M. The impact of green human resource management practices on sustainable performance in healthcare organisations: A conceptual framework. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 243, 118595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Ogbeibu, S.; Emelifeonwu, J.; Pereira, V.; Oseghale, R.; Gaskin, J.; Sivarajah, U.; Gunasekaran, A. Demystifying the roles of organisational smart technology, artificial intelligence, robotics and algorithms capability: A strategy for green human resource management and environmental sustainability. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2024, 33, 369–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Aftab, J.; Abid, N.; Cucari, N.; Savastano, M. Green human resource management and environmental performance: The role of green innovation and environmental strategy in a developing country. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2023, 32, 1782–1798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Gelagay, D.A.; Werke, S.Z. Impact of green human resource management and internal green supply chain management practices on operational performance: An empirical investigation of manufacturing sector. Bus. Strategy Dev. 2024, 7, e399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Afum, E.; Agyabeng-Mensah, Y.; Opoku Mensah, A.; Mensah-Williams, E.; Baah, C.; Dacosta, E. Internal environmental management and green human resource management: Significant catalysts for improved corporate reputation and performance. Benchmarking 2021, 28, 3074–3101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Marrucci, L.; Daddi, T.; Iraldo, F. Institutional and stakeholder pressures on organisational performance and green human resources management. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2023, 30, 324–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. EU Legislation on Environmental Assessments Home Page. Available online: https://www.era-comm.eu/EU_Legislation_on_Environmental_Assessments/stand_alone/index.html (accessed on 16 March 2025).
  70. Ali, W.; Frynas, J.G.; Mahmood, Z. Determinants of corporate social responsibility (CSR) disclosure in developed and developing countries: A literature review. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2017, 24, 273–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B.; Lee, J.Y.; Podsakoff, N.P. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 2003, 88, 879–903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021, 372, n71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Lawter, L.; Garnjost, P. Green HRM and Organizational Performance: A Systematic Literature Review. In Proceedings of the 5th International Human Resource Conference, Copenhagen, Denmark, 1 November 2024; ISEG: Lisboa, Portugal, 2024. [Google Scholar]
Sustainability 17 03132 g001
Figure 1. Identification of studies using PRISMA 2020 protocol.
Figure 1. Identification of studies using PRISMA 2020 protocol.
Sustainability 17 03132 g001
Sustainability 17 03132 g002
Figure 2. Clusters of organizational measures (N = number of studies in each cluster).
Figure 2. Clusters of organizational measures (N = number of studies in each cluster).
Sustainability 17 03132 g002
Sustainability 17 03132 g003
Figure 3. Theories, organizational performance measures, and mediating/moderating variables.
Figure 3. Theories, organizational performance measures, and mediating/moderating variables.
Sustainability 17 03132 g003
Table 1. Publication trends: year of publication.
Table 1. Publication trends: year of publication.
YearCountPercent
20246234.4
20234927.2
20222715.0
20212011.1
2020137.2
201931.7
201821.1
201721.1
201621.1
Table 2. Publication trends: journal of publication.
Table 2. Publication trends: journal of publication.
JournalsRankCount
SustainabilityQ219
Journal of Cleaner ProductionQ110
Environmental Science and Pollution ResearchQ18
International Journal of ManpowerQ26
International Journal of Sustainable Development and PlanningQ36
BenchmarkingQ26
Business Strategy and the EnvironmentQ15
Journal of Environmental Planning and ManagementQ25
International Journal of Organizational AnalysisQ24
Business Strategy and DevelopmentQ34
Cogent Business and ManagementQ33
Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental ManagementQ13
International Journal of Human Resource ManagementQ13
Table 3. Publication trends: geographical region of study.
Table 3. Publication trends: geographical region of study.
RegionCount
Asia118
Middle East30
Africa13
Europe12
Australia2
South America1
Table 4. Publication trends: top countries of study.
Table 4. Publication trends: top countries of study.
CountryCount
Pakistan43
China18
India16
Malaysia14
Indonesia10
Saudi Arabia8
Ghana8
Egypt5
Palestine5
Vietnam4
Qatar4
Table 5. Publication trends: top industry sectors of study.
Table 5. Publication trends: top industry sectors of study.
Industry SectorsCount
Manufacturing56
Cross-Industry39
Hospitality27
Healthcare12
Higher Education10
Banking5
Food/Beverage5
Table 6. Number of empirical studies by organizational performance outcomes.
Table 6. Number of empirical studies by organizational performance outcomes.
Organizational Performance MeasureCount
Environmental Performance105
Sustainable Performance52
Green Innovation50
Corporate Social Responsibility23
Green Leadership23
Firm Performance19
Green Organizational Culture17
Organizational Citizenship13
Supply Chain Management11
Employee Green Behaviors17
Circular Economy Performance6
Organizational Competitiveness4
Organizational Reputation4
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

Lawter, L.; Garnjost, P. Green Human Resource Management and Organizational Performance: A Systematic Review. Sustainability 2025, 17, 3132. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17073132

AMA Style

Lawter L, Garnjost P. Green Human Resource Management and Organizational Performance: A Systematic Review. Sustainability. 2025; 17(7):3132. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17073132

Chicago/Turabian Style

Lawter, Leanna, and Petra Garnjost. 2025. "Green Human Resource Management and Organizational Performance: A Systematic Review" Sustainability 17, no. 7: 3132. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17073132

APA Style

Lawter, L., & Garnjost, P. (2025). Green Human Resource Management and Organizational Performance: A Systematic Review. Sustainability, 17(7), 3132. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17073132

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