A Human Dignity Perspective on Sustainable Human Resource Management: From Utilitarian to Dignified Approaches

Abstract

This conceptual theory-building paper discusses how a dignity lens may conceptualize Sustainable Human Resource Management (HRM) to protect workers and other stakeholders within and beyond the organization. Sustainable HRM has become a popular topic and approach in the recent literature but has not yet been fully developed both ontologically and theoretically. We postulate how a particular focus on instrumentality and individualism has become the dominant way of theorizing HRM and is still impacting the dominant way of theorizing Sustainable HRM. We then conceptualize an alternative paradigm on the basis of human dignity, which offers an ontological lens on how workplaces and HRM could be designed. The paper discusses the implications of a dignity paradigm for HRM theory, research and practice by proposing a more pluralistic approach towards research in the field. We explore in depth the ways a dignity paradigm shapes the Sustainable HRM agenda and discuss how such a paradigm informs specific HR practices. The paper presents a research agenda focused on the new dignity paradigm within Sustainable HRM scholarship.

1. Introduction

Contemporary global environmental, political and economic developments, including the need to address climate change [1] and social inequalities [2], have affected societies throughout the world. Citizens increasingly face unemployment, job insecurity and wage stagnation [3,4]. Hence, governments and organizations need to act to create more sustainable economies and organizations. However, while this need is becoming more pertinent to governments, organizations, and the public, there is also an inertia that is stifling actual progress towards sustainability, with many commitments such as the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) at risk of becoming meaningless [5]. It has been argued that this is because such commitments are still embedded within a dominant economic-utilitarian approach to how the economy and organizational life are organized [1,6]. This approach renders people, the environment, and the planet more generally as instruments of societal and organizational goals, which are usually conceptualized as profit or economic/financial growth. It is therefore not surprising to observe that sustainability commitments often become empty promises and in need of more radical reinterpretation [5]. To spur a more radical transformation of organizations towards sustainability, it is necessary to establish new paradigms that center human and planetary health and well-being at the forefront. Dominant organizational approaches to how people are managed are also currently embedded within the economic-utilitarian logic and are still in need of a fundamental reassessment. Human Resource Management (HRM) systems and practices are central to the translation of organizational values and policies into concrete practices for workers. It is therefore suitable that the main focus of this paper will be on HRM in the context of trying to make organizations more sustainable. Hence, our main question underpinning this paper concerns how traditional, utilitarian-focused human resource practices can be transformed to become sustainable, taking into account the necessity of a long-term perspective that protects the health and well-being of both humans and the planet more generally. This constitutes not just a normative stance that is taken by academics and practitioners but also a necessity for the survival of humanity on a rapidly changing planet, where extreme weather as a result of climate change impacts many millions of people on a daily basis. Many scholars have argued that instead of a dominant instrumentalist logic, the dignity of people ought to be central in organizations [7,8,9]. Dignity postulates the inherent worth of human beings and the planet as central to human existence. Each individual human being has an inherent, intrinsic and inviolable worth that should be respected and protected [7,9]. Because dignity focuses on the intrinsic worth of each human being, it is uniquely positioned to argue for more sustainable approaches to HRM, as the intrinsic value of human dignity contrasts with the economic logic currently dominant in HRM, a logic that also instrumentalizes concepts such as well-being for corporate profitability [3]. Therefore, dignity gets to the heart of what makes organizations more sustainable and thus how Sustainable HRM could be designed and developed. In this paper, we will explore and conceptualize how a paradigm based on dignity informs the design and principles of Sustainable Human Resource Management (HRM). We will discuss the implications arising from analyzing its core assumptions on the actual human-related practices in organizations.

We will integrate workplace dignity theory into Sustainable HRM and position Human Dignity Development (HDD) as the operational and practical bridge between them. Despite Sustainable HRM emphasizing long-term workforce sustainability, decent work, and stakeholder balance, it has inadequately theorized the normative underpinning of what is being sustained. Existing approaches often frame employees as resources whose value lies in productivity preservation. By incorporating workplace dignity theory, we reconceptualize sustainability as the protection and expansion of employees’ intrinsic worth, autonomy, respect, and protection and as the promotion of dignity.

First, we shift the sustainability discussion from a narrow concentration on resource preservation toward a conception of capability sustainability. Instead of defining sustainability as the maintenance of a stable and productive workforce, we reconceptualize it as the institutionalized expansion of employees’ multidimensional capabilities under conditions of justice, voice, and decent work [10,11]. In this reframing, social sustainability moves beyond workforce retention to encompass the sustained development of human potential grounded in fairness and recognition. Sustainability therefore entails not merely preventing human capital depletion but embedding equitable access to development opportunities, enabling meaningful participation in growth-related decisions, protecting employees from dignity violation and safeguarding employees from capability erosion driven by work intensification and short-term efficiency pressures.

Second, the framework specifies Human Dignity Development (HDD) as a micro-level mechanism that operationalizes dignity within Sustainable HRM. Developmental justice mechanisms, meaningful contributions, voice-centered learning approaches, protected learning time, and leadership accountability for employee growth become structural expressions of dignity rather than discretionary practices. In this way, dignity shifts from an abstract moral principle to an embedded organizational design feature. It is via such an approach that dignity creates more long-term sustainability, both in terms of organizational and human sustainability.

Third, our framework advances Sustainable HRM by introducing dignity as a measurable and operationalizable paradigm. By linking dignity-anchored capability expansion to dignified work experiences and long-term employability security (employability sustainability), we demonstrate how sustainability outcomes such as resilience, retention, decent work, and well-being emerge. In doing so, we extend sustainability theory beyond environmental and economic continuity toward social sustainability grounded in human development. Accordingly, the paper advances a dignity-based theory of Sustainable HRM in which long-term organizational viability depends on the institutional protection and expansion of human capability.

2. Theoretical Development

Sustainable HRM has become somewhat of a buzzword that has become increasingly popular in management studies [12]. Sustainable HRM is about changing HRM to become more sustainable, contributing both to environmental, corporate and human sustainability [4]. Sustainable HRM is a multidimensional concept, referring to many different elements of the employment relationship. While sustainability may intuitively refer primarily to environmental sustainability, it is also associated with financial, social, and human sustainability. Hence, the overall idea behind Sustainable HRM pertains to the notion that policies and practices for workers in organizations are transformed to become more viable in the long run, protecting the well-being of people within and beyond the organization [12]. Sustainable HRM can be conceptualized through four dimensions relevant to how the use of human resources in organizations can be made more sustainable. First, there is a leadership dimension, in which a top-down approach to sustainability is perceived to be important. HRM can be made more sustainable when there is strong leadership, a strong organizational culture, and a commitment to sustainable practices [12]. Second, third and fourth, Sustainable HRM is captured by the three dimensions that have been linked to the Triple Bottom Line: Environment, Profit, and Social [12]. In other words, Sustainable HRM is conceptualized as a system that is dependent on strong leadership and focuses on the long-term viability of the environment, the organization’s finances, and human well-being. However, this approach to Sustainable HRM has also been criticized [6], as its commitment to sustainability may only constitute a lip service, while its origin and core assumptions are still grounded in exploitation of human beings for corporate profit. More precisely, Sustainable HRM is often conceptualized as ultimately prioritizing an economic-utilitarian perspective on HRM itself [7]. This means that even though Sustainable HRM claims to be concerned with people and the planet, the economic logic prevails, in that organizations continue to function on the basis of profit and exploitation. It does so by prioritizing a utilitarian logic, in which not only people but also planetary resources (e.g., land and natural resources) are used instrumentally to achieve economic goals. For instance, the burning of fossil fuels continues despite its destructive effects for both planetary and human health, as it literally fuels the global economy. There is therefore a need to postulate a much more radical and fundamental rethinking of how Sustainable HRM is conceptualized, designed and executed. In the remainder of this paper, we will therefore develop a dignity-based reading of Sustainable HRM.

2.1. Dignity and Sustainable Human Resource Management

There are rich traditions in HRM which have dissociated themselves from economic-utilitarian underpinnings, including feminist and critical perspectives [13], the literature on social justice (e.g., [2]), spiritual development and meaningful work [14], and mentoring and meaning [15]. The current paper assesses potential alternatives to Sustainable HRM based on the limitations we highlighted. To do so, a theory is selected that counteracts the fundamental assumptions (i.e., economic priority and utility; [10]).

Our main argument is that if human dignity is central in organizations, human beings are no longer merely instrumental to organizational performance and profit and are not expected to be individually responsible for their own learning and performance [3]. Moreover, research has shown that workplace dignity offers relational benefits to employee engagement and burnout reduction [16], and therefore, such a theoretical approach aims to protect the well-being of individuals and promotes the advancement of socially responsible HRM [17]. The concept of dignity bridges macro-level and micro-level approaches, as by postulating the necessity of dignity as an organizing framework, it not only informs the principles of the organization itself but also how individuals interact with each other and how this contributes to greater dignity [8]. It therefore also has the potential to transform HRM as a system of policies and practices more fundamentally, as it links explicitly the macro and the micro levels of organizing.

A dignity perspective contributes to existing perspectives in HRM, including the feminist and critical literature [18,19]. Yet, these have not explicitly alluded to how a dignity perspective can contribute to further understanding how HRM may become more sustainable, such that it takes into account the interests of a wider range of stakeholders. A dignity perspective explicitly builds on these traditions but also extends them by emphasizing the centrality of the dignity of each individual as a new approach. We propose this is done by moving from HRM to HDD or from treating human beings as mere resources to being respectful of their inherent dignity. The value of HDD beyond HRM is that human beings are no longer treated as mere instrumental ‘resources’ within organizations, but that human dignity is central to the idea of organizing and the role of people in organizations. The new insights a HDD lens brings include a radically transformed understanding of how human beings are treated in organizations. People are no longer merely treated as instruments for profit and to be exploited by organizations but as having an inherent dignity that needs to be respected and promoted [7]. Accordingly, development (of dignity and dignified organizations) becomes paramount to organizing, which represents a radical rupture from the dominant ways of organizing. Through focusing on dignity within HRM, new questions can be raised, through which more diversity can be generated in terms of research topics, questions, and theoretical frameworks and debates [20]. Figure 1 shows an exemplary figure of how a dominant economic-utilitarian approach to HRM can move to an approach centered around Human Dignity Development (HDD). The figure is a visual representation of how Sustainable HRM could be transformed to include greater dignity, while moving away from more traditional utilitarian models of HRM. HDD builds on concepts such as human development [10], well-being [4], and capabilities [17,18] but synthesizes these concepts around the anchoring point of dignity (i.e., the intrinsic worth of human beings). Accordingly, HDD anchors these concepts by relevantly linking them to the respect of the dignity of each human being. HDD represents a system of organizing (i.e., Management) within workplaces based on the principle of respecting, protecting and promoting the dignity of each individual. HDD can be translated into concrete practices, which we will do in this paper.

To do so, we will review the core assumptions, principles, starting points, focus, theory and models, topics and outcomes of Sustainable HRM research. This will elucidate the ways through which such a dignity perspective contributes to Sustainable HRM. We start by discussing how a dignity perspective informs society generally, after which we apply the lens to Sustainable HRM practices specifically.

The paper explores an alternative to hegemonic approaches to Sustainable HRM on the basis of dignity. Human dignity offers an alternative way to conceptualize the management and development of people in organizations [7] other than the instrumental, power- and privilege-laden positions that have infiltrated HRM-related studies (see, e.g., [21]). We performed a structured analysis to understand how a different paradigmatic approach would manifest if it were based on dignity. This will inform scholars’ understandings of what the basic ontological assumptions, principles and relevant outcomes of research are within and for a dignity paradigm. Moreover, a dignity paradigm is also contributive to human well-being, personal flourishing and social justice [11,16,22]. This alternative provides a useful lens for researchers to study and for practitioners to remedy some, if not all, the contemporary global issues, such as inequality, populism and climate change [23,24].

2.2. An Alternative to Contemporary Sustainable HRM

Many authors have pointed to the essential limitations of existing paradigms to understand our contemporary global social and economic problems [3,25,26,27,28]. However, so far there have been few attempts to formulate theoretical alternatives [10,17]. In this paper, a dignity paradigm was chosen as it counteracts the two core assumptions of mainstream economic-utilitarian HRM [7,23]. The dominance of individualism and instrumentality in HRM theorizing reflects a broader managerial ideology. Mainstream HRM frameworks emphasize individual responsibility, merit-based performance, and the alignment of employee behavior with organizational goals through performance–reward linkages [29,30]. This orientation constructs employees as autonomous, self-interested actors whose motivation can be shaped through calculative incentive systems, reinforcing a unitarist and managerialist logic [31]. From a broader political–economic perspective, mainstream HRM privileges market discipline, competition, and the treatment of individuals as human capital, further embedding instrumental rationality within HRM theory and practice [26,32]. Critical scholars argue that this focus marginalizes collective and relational dimensions of work while strengthening managerial control [33].

A dignity paradigm offers two competing core assumptions about HRM and the other ontological and epistemological elements within a dignity paradigm offer counternarratives to neoliberal ideology. Dignity may open up other interpretations and meanings of work and organizing and, consequently, the ways through which this can be studied. More specifically, this paper argues for a pluralist approach towards studying HRM, indicating the involvement of different stakeholders in HRM research, such as employees, organizations, civil society and government [34].

2.3. Human Dignity as an Alternative

The philosopher Immanuel Kant postulated that human beings ought never to be a means towards an end but should always be an end in themselves. Kant believed that every human being has inherent dignity (or at least white men). The concept of dignity [23,35], therefore, offers the potential to reconceptualize HRM.

Table 1. A dignity paradigm in society.

		Paradigm
	Elements	Human Dignity
Societal Level	Responsibility of the state	Protection of the dignity of the most vulnerable in society
		Income and employment security
		Universal health care
		Education
		Decent work
		Collective representation (political and trade unions)
	Responsibility of the individual	Struggle for dignity
		Democratic citizenship
Organizational Level	Organization	Decent work
		Community and democracy
	Governance	Stakeholder-based governance
	Management	Respecting, protecting and promoting the inherent dignity of workers
		Recognizing the earned dignity of workers
	Goals	Participation and meaning
	Time perspective	Short and long term
	Outcomes	Dignity protection and promotion
Individual Level	Philosophy	Inherent and earned human dignity
	Goals	Living to one’s capabilities
	Disposition	Relational and divided

shows the implications of a dignity paradigm for both society, organizations and individuals. A human dignity paradigm focuses on balance within society and individuals and depicts a relational disposition between parties rather than a transactional one. This entails the idea that maximization of outcomes cannot be a goal in itself, as such in [23], given that a dignity paradigm prioritizes balance between the interests of different parties and concerns. While maximization of outcomes does not take into account that people are relational and that the maximization of one’s outcomes may come at the expense of others, a dignity paradigm explicitly integrates those concerns and prioritizes a more meaningful balance between interactors’ interests. Human dignity as the intrinsic worth of each human being presupposes duties of people to one another [36].

The central argument behind dignity is that for each individual, the most important thing in life is to be treated as a human being [37]. Human dignity is defined as the intrinsic, inherent worth of each human being, which is manifested through the unalienable right for individuals to express and respect themselves and others, to be able to set one’s standards of living and to live accordingly. Moreover, it also includes the duty of each individual human being to respect the dignity of other human beings; therefore, dignity is, by definition, relational [9,23]. Hence, while it is an inherent worth existing in each individual human being, dignity also exists outside of the human being in the ways people treat and respect each other.

Moreover, even though the dignity of each human being is an absolute value, it also means that human dignity is contextual. In other words, how this absolute value manifests in a particular context is subject to debate, consensus and democratic agreement [23]. As a general principle, dignity is more likely to be respected and promoted in the presence of balance between the interests and needs of various parties involved [7,23,38]. If organizations are defined in broad terms, including the spaces where people cooperate, and produce value for individuals, society and communities [22,39], the intrinsic worth of individuals can be integrated to have a value for organizations themselves. The argument here is that the very purpose of the existence of an organization includes the respect, protection and promotion of the intrinsic worth of people. This translates into the goals that organizations set for themselves and the activities associated with such goals, which, by definition, will include the respect of the individual intrinsic worth of people.

In an economic paradigm where dignity is central, all economic activity is dependent upon the criterion of whether an action strives for the respect, protection, and promotion of human dignity in the workplace [16,23]. Both organizations and individuals have a duty to strive towards respecting and protecting the dignity of employees, customers, suppliers and other stakeholders. The basic assumptions underlying a dignity paradigm are summarized in Table 1, while

Table 2. A human dignity perspective on Sustainable Human Resource Management.

	Theoretical Perspective
Elements	Human Dignity in Sustainable HRM
	Aspect
Core assumptions	Intrinsic worth
	Autonomy
	Respect, protection and promotion of dignity
Principles	Cooperation
	Relational
Starting Point	Sustainable HRM has intrinsic meaning
	People have inherent dignity
Focus	Individual human being within a community
Theories and Models	Sustainability theory
	Workplace dignity theory
	Psychoanalytic theory
Topics	Involvement and meaning
	Dignity violation
	Resistance
	Parallax view
Recruitment, Selection and Long-term Employability	No job applications with the exclusive aim of excluding applicants
	Open hiring
	Respecting the dignity of applicants
	Democratic hiring and selection processes
	Hiring and selection practices organized beyond organizations
Training and Development	Training and developing people for long-term future, beyond current job and organization
	Training and developing for capability development
	Participatory development systems
	Mentoring for dignity
	Workers training each other
	Access to training is amplified
Performance Management	Performance requirements are democratically negotiated
	Performance is inherently tied to decent work experiences
	Performance is evaluated inversely and in democratic ways
Reward Distribution	Rewards are democratically negotiated
	Any increase in rewards has to be conducted with special attention to the lowest pay scales
	Upper limits are set for salaries in organizations
	Financial savings are made for economically difficult times
Involvement and Participation	Democratic principles govern organizational life
	Workers can directly or indirectly participate through direct or representative democracy
	Empowerment
Exit	Workers have employment/job security
	Worker exit from organizations needs to be focused on dignity protection
	Financial pressures should not lead to layoffs as the natural solution
Outcomes	Experienced dignity protection and promotion
	Meaning and learning
	Health and well-being
	Democratic citizenship
	Decent work
	Financial sustainability
	Community
	Planetary health and restoration of broken space

shows the implications for Sustainable HRM.

Table 1 shows that at societal level, two main guiding principles refer to how dignity unfolds, which contradict the instrumental logic and are based primarily on previous research on dignity [4,6,7,8,9,23]. While a government serves large corporations and capital in the contemporary neoliberal state [26], in a dignified society, its responsibilities shift radically. The state’s responsibilities in a dignified society concern above all the protection of those who are most vulnerable in society [11]. While in most countries worldwide, there is the protection of the majority population or those who are in power, a dignity lens postulates that states exist to protect the dignity of those who need it most. States and governments can do so via a range of means, including, but not limited to, offering employment and income security, education, universal health care, decent work [4], and importantly, possibilities for collective representation for the people. The latter could be achieved directly through fair elections and democratic systems that protect the dignity of the people but also through trade unions and legal protection of collective representation at the organizational level. Jointly, these responsibilities of the state in a dignified organization pertain to creating and protecting structures, laws, and infrastructures that provide the possibility of dignified work. It is especially the most vulnerable in society who need their dignity to be protected and who are most struggling to achieve respect for their dignity [40], and it is therefore the primary responsibility of the state.

Organizations in a dignity paradigm serve not just the shareholders’ or owners’ interest and are focused neither purely on short-term profitability, nor on the operationalization of employment relationships solely within a contractual framework. Organizations in a dignity paradigm are focused on providing decent work [4] and on the creation of social communities, pay attention to the interests of various stakeholders and promote the long-term development of society, organizations, and people [7]. Relationships with employees are focused on employee dignity and are organized around participation of individuals in organizations, meaning of work, and development. The management of organizations is constituted on the basis of respecting, protecting and promoting the dignity of human beings within and beyond the organization [23]. It also focuses on the recognition of the earned dignity of workers. This means that workers contribute with their labor to the organizational goals but also to their own goals and may also support colleagues. Their contributions are recognized and rewarded in a dignified organization. Moreover, a fundamental goal in human life is to be part of collectives, and to be able to participate in organizational life fulfills the human desire for the establishment of relationships and belonging. Moreover, work can be important to finding meaning in life [4]. Dignified organizations postulate the basic principle of participation and meaning and actively strive towards the fulfillment of these principles. Thereby, the focus of organizational functioning is both on the short-term and long-term protection and promotion of human dignity in and beyond the organization.

Finally, human dignity is also a guiding philosophy at the individual level through which the goals of an individual in economic engagement are not solely defined in terms of utility maximization and self-interest. Human existence in a dignity paradigm is based on the dual meaning of dignity. On the one hand, inherent dignity refers to the intrinsic and inviolable worth of each human being, a dignity that should be respected and protected. A relational perspective [9] dictates that such dignity emerges and unfolds in the interactions and relationships between people. This means that people respect the dignity of others. On the other hand, earned dignity refers to the worth of each human being for their contributions made [16]. People earn their dignity through their actions, through the ways they treat themselves and others, and such earned dignity is a fundamental prerequisite for human relationships. Such earned dignity is not equal for each human being but determined by the individual goals of people. In a capabilities framework [11], the goal of each human being is to live to one’s own capabilities or to what we are actually able to do in life and with our lives. Such capabilities are strongly related to one’s health, one’s bodily integrity, one’s ability to be able to use their senses, and one’s thoughts and emotions. In other words, a capabilities framework dictates that dignity implies that each human being should be able to live a life as a full human being, with the ability to use one’s capabilities. These capabilities are inherently relational, just as dignity itself is relational, as being a human being and living one’s life while using one’s capabilities can only materialize in and through relationships with others. Nonetheless, the other element of dignity’s disposition is its dividedness [41]. This means that dignity is never completed, that there is never an all-encompassing view of what dignity constitutes. Dignity arises from relationships, interactions and dialog in organizations but can never be defined in such a way that it is closed, that there is a comprehensive understanding of what constitutes dignified treatment in organizations. It is therefore important that dignity itself is always contested and differentially perceived by each individual. Hence, any argument brought forward in this paper about the relevance of dignity needs to be debated and assessed in order to establish concrete meanings of dignity in practice. Nonetheless, to be able to direct future research on dignity and Sustainable HRM, we now discuss in more detail how dignity informs our understanding of Sustainable HRM practices.

2.4. Dignity and Sustainable HRM

Table 2 shows how dignity can be implemented in Sustainable HRM. We discuss each of the elements that are relevant to how Sustainable HRM can be conceptualized, researched, and translated into actual HRM practices, as well as the projected outcomes of dignified practices. A dignity paradigm ensures the inherent worth of human beings and the planet are prioritized [6,7,8]. Consequently, these principles are translated through dialog, interactions and democracy [23]. This means that dignity as an abstract value or paradigm needs to be translated into concrete practices through the act of dialog. Such dialog can manifest at the individual level, whereby two individuals at work discuss how they understand respectful treatment [23]. Moreover, dignity can also manifest through more structured approaches, such as workplace democracy [8]. From these earlier elements, we can assess what dignity in HRM would look like. Below, we expand on each of these.

2.5. Core Assumptions

A dignity paradigm has three main assumptions: intrinsic worth; autonomy; and respect, protection and promotion of dignity. Intrinsic worth denotes the inviolable value of each individual citizen in their own right. Hence, the intrinsic worth of each human being is a core assumption of dignified Sustainable HRM [42]. This means that any HRM system or practice is always designed to take into account the inherent worth of each human being in the organization. Autonomy refers to the possibility of each individual to make choices for oneself and to live according to one’s capabilities [10]. This autonomy therefore involves both the freedom to make choices and also the duty to restrict one’s own freedom where it impacts upon someone else’s freedom [36]. Individuals should have the autonomy in dignified HRM to be able to live and work according to their capabilities and thus also have the ability to impose restrictions on themselves. This is possible through refraining from perceiving work and employment relationships as solely instrumental and utilitarian. This is re-established in an intrinsic entity, where people support each other in the workplace. This support is focused on the respect, protection and promotion of dignity of human beings [23]. Hence, instead of a workplace where people focus on the maximization of their own outcomes (e.g., career success, promotions, and salary), the focus is on the support of other people’s dignity in line with the relational principles of a dignity paradigm [36,43]. Thus, the core assumption pertains to respecting, protecting and promoting the dignity, both inherent and earned, of people within and beyond the organization.

2.6. Principles

The core assumptions lead to two main principles for studying HRM: cooperation and relations form the basic propositions of how dignity unfolds in HDD. Following the above discussion, the first principle pertains to cooperation (rather than competition; [17,44]). Research has traditionally (implicitly) adhered to competitive norms in the workplace and thus to settings where performance and development have a competitive function for people to differentiate themselves from others. In contrast, a dignity paradigm postulates that an individual is always dependent upon others for achieving work goals. Hence, the maintenance of one’s own dignity at work is always dependent upon the extent to which the dignity of others is respected and maintained [16,42]. Therefore, a cooperative principle allows for the mutual and joint achievement of the dignity of workers in balance with each other’s mutual and collaborative development [44]. Violating such a balance renders dignity instrumental and consequently economic.

The second principle is relationality, which involves the idea that people can enact human agency through the act of relating to each other [45] and thereby have their contribution respected [46]. In other words, dignity can only be a value guiding social life when it is based within the interactions among human beings, allowing for the latent properties of dignity to manifest in certain circumstances and contexts [45]. Thus, dignity does not have much value as captured, intrinsic worth as such; it needs to be translated into everyday language at work and research to fully understand its relational meaning within its context. Applied to HRM, relationality involves the idea that performance and development occur in the collaboration and relationships between people and that work takes place with other people and not in isolation [44]. True performance and work success are not the result of a rational transaction between two parties but materialize through the relationships between people, which, at the very foundation, are constituted as a relationship of (minimal) trust, in which two people (or parties) trust each other to collaborate or engage in an economic transaction that should be based on equality of exchange.

2.7. Starting Point

The ultimate starting points of a dignity paradigm are that Sustainable HRM has an intrinsic meaning [17] and that people have their inherent dignity. A dignity paradigm establishes the view that work in itself has intrinsic meaning and is an extension of the notion that human beings have intrinsic worth. Work can be valued for its intrinsic properties that align with the needs central to human existence [47]. For instance, a human need concerns the importance of relationships with other people and the notion of human capabilities, both of which can be materialized through work. Sustainable HRM, therefore, aims not to be a mere contributor to economic performance of an organization; in a dignity paradigm, it is valued intrinsically as it contributes to the dignity of individuals. Moreover, it is this inherent dignity that acts as the starting point of any decision making and of any action or research project around Sustainable HRM. We now turn to the more epistemological elements of dignified HRM.

2.8. Focus

While mainstream HRM prioritizes individual economic freedom, a dignity perspective re-establishes the value of relationality and thereby highlights the limitations of individual freedom vis-à-vis the dignity of others. Hence, a dignity perspective explicitly shifts the focus of research from the individual in the organization to the individual within the wider community. A dignity perspective takes into account both that individuals are embedded within communities and that there is an inherent link between the individual, the organization and the community. Through studying individuals in isolation within organizations, research has too narrowly investigated the individual experience as if the wider context did not matter [17]. The dignity perspective thus values the role of work not as something happening merely in organizations but as an important aspect of the viability of communities [10,48]. Such a shift entails the belief that work is not just important for people in paid jobs but also for people without and outside of formal jobs. For instance, learning and development could be proactively offered by organizations (in collaboration with other stakeholders such as the government) to unemployed people in order to develop their skills such that they may return to the workplace if and when desired. Moreover, organizations could play an important role in offering individuals opportunities to learn and develop their skills that extend beyond the workplace to help strengthen local communities. Such initiatives are currently not conducted as they would not contribute to organizational performance or are only conducted when they are part of the marketing of an organization as socially responsible. However, in a dignity paradigm, such initiatives would be part of the organizational fabric and independent from the instrumental value to organizations themselves.

2.9. Theories and Models

In a dignity paradigm, new theories emerge around the role of individuals in organizations. Sustainable HRM is primarily formed through a macro-level sustainability theory [12]. This entails a focus on the preservation of the three main pillars of organizational functioning: people, the planet, and corporate profit. However, in a dignity paradigm, the latter does not prevail, as is the case within the contemporary economy [6], but its interests are strongly aligned with the protection and promotion of the dignity of people and the planet. In other words, organizations can only be sustainable when they respect, protect and promote dignity, and this forms the macro-level basis for organizing Sustainable HRM.

In addition, the theory of workplace dignity presumes that workplaces and individuals are not merely instrumental in relation to the achievement of organizational goals such as profitability. In contrast, dignity theory postulates that human development is a necessary condition for the enactment of dignity within and beyond the organization [48,49]. Dignity theory may also be used to conceptualize how individuals may have fair, equal and unfettered access to work. For instance, Nussbaum’s [11] capabilities theory and Byrd’s [2] social justice perspective may contribute to better theoretical and practical understanding of how dignity can be further theorized in relation to work and Sustainable HRM. Such theories may help to construct conceptions of social justice and how HRM may contribute to a social justice and dignity perspective.

The final theoretical background concerns psychoanalytic theory [41]. This relates to the divided nature of human existence and dignity itself. More specifically, dignity always risks becoming a meaningless and empty concept [23], which is used to denote a proclaimed commitment to human well-being without being anchored in real practices that protect the inherent worth of humans. It may also be used in an exclusionary manner [40], in which the dignity of a special group of people is prioritized over that of others (e.g., where the dignity of some workers is more important than that of others). It is therefore important to acknowledge that both human existence and dignity itself are inherently divided. Psychoanalytic theory helps us to understand how unconscious beliefs and fantasy structure human feelings and behaviors (e.g., [3]), and accordingly, Sustainable HRM and human dignity always need to be understood as incomplete, divided, and inherently antagonistic, which is supported through a psychoanalytic lens [41].

2.10. Topics

The topics of research within Sustainable HRM under a dignity paradigm may partly change as well. While mainstream research prioritizes instrumental (e.g., performance) and individualistic (e.g., self-management) topics, in contrast, a dignity paradigm does not prioritize such topics. Our new paradigm also does not only introduce various new topics but also re-establishes the anchoring points of existing topics around the intrinsic worth for people. While involvement and meaning are central to a dignity paradigm, they can be perceived as the primary topics which are relevant to a dignified workplace, namely that every person in the workplace should be involved and have the opportunity to contribute. Workers should feel that they are an integral part of the workplace and communities and that they have the opportunity to learn and develop themselves [17]. Moreover, the workplace should provide people with possibilities for development.

Furthermore, in a dignity paradigm, topics of research are reformulated towards dignity. For instance, talent management is not merely an activity within an organization to separate low performers from high performers or to separate those who will receive opportunities for further development and career progression from those who will not [50]. Dignified HRM is reformulated to establish and nourish the talents of each person such that they contribute to greater dignity in the workplace. Finally, it is important not just to focus on situations where dignity is respected and promoted but also where dignity is violated [16,42]. Research on this is important as it elucidates the conditions under which workplaces become undignified and thus needs to be understood in relation to how workplaces maintain and violate dignity. Moreover, resistance is also an important topic within a dignity paradigm, as existing models of HRM are often exploitative and focused on optimizing performance for corporate benefit at the expense of employee dignity and well-being [6]. To move away from such exploitative models, it is necessary to study how resistance against exploitative practices may unfold towards building more dignified workplaces.

One way to do this is to imagine radically different workplaces [6,51]. This could be achieved through taking a perspective that moves beyond mere binary opposition between corporate benefit and employee welfare towards a radically restructured economy and society that is focused on the protection and promotion of dignity of people and the planet [23,51]. It is not sufficient to merely imagine how incremental changes could be made to ensure the necessary transformation of society, and a parallax view, a view that deviates radically from what is known, may be a necessary step towards greater dignity at work.

3. Sustainable HRM Practices in a Dignity Paradigm

While the previous section discusses how a dignity paradigm informs both the ontological and epistemological grounding of research, it does not concretely present an agenda of how Sustainable HRM could both be researched and implemented in actual organizations. To do so, we exemplify how a dignity lens informs six main dimensions of Sustainable HRM: recruitment, training, performance, rewards, involvement, and exit. For each of these, we discuss how a dignity paradigm offers a different perspective on each of these crucial elements of HRM.

3.1. Recruitment, Selection and Long-Term Employability

In mainstream HRM, recruitment serves as a way for organizations to select the ‘best’ employees and to exclude those who are not deemed to fit in with the organization. However, this comes often with dignity violations, as perfectly qualified individuals may have to go through repeated humiliating experiences of rejection, which may profoundly affect their confidence, motivation and well-being. In a dignified recruitment system, job openings are not created to merely exclude applicants. Instead, open hiring practices in which workers can experiment in jobs and where democratic hiring practices prevail may offer a way through which the dignity of individuals is protected [15]. While organizations may have natural limits to how many people can be employed in order to provide meaningful jobs, recruitment and selection also need to be organized at levels beyond the organization, such as at the local level of municipalities and nationally. Recruitment and selection would be aimed not at excluding people from possible jobs but at matching people with organizations and ensuring long-term employability for all workers, such that they can find meaning through and in work.

3.2. Training and Development

Training and development are central to a dignified organization [7,13]. A capabilities approach focuses on the opportunity for people to exercise their abilities, but even more so, to be able to develop themselves and their capabilities [52]. Hence, a dignity approach entails that people are trained for both the short and the long term, for one’s current role and for future roles. Such development unfolds and is organized in a participatory manner, such that workers across the organization have the opportunity to design their own development, in close collaboration with each other, while both training and mentoring each other. Traditionally, access to (meaningful) training and development is organized in an exclusionary way, such that only higher-performing employees have access. However, in a dignity paradigm, access to training and development is amplified, such that each individual has the opportunity to develop themselves.

3.3. Performance Management

Performance is the ultimate criterion in an economic-utilitarian organization and is thought to be the most important dimension that ensures corporate profit. A logic of performance is what keeps capitalism alive, but in a dignified organization, performance is no longer the sole criterion. Performance is fundamentally rethought, such that it is about individual and collective contributions to meaningful outcomes, such as greater dignity, restoration of nature, and so on. Performance becomes a question of how an organization and individuals function such that they generate meaningful economic activity, but activity that is protective of the dignity of people and the planet. This has to be negotiated democratically, with the involvement of not just members of the organization itself but also external stakeholders, such as the government, NGOs and citizens. One crucial element is how performance can be integrated into the experience of decent work [4]. Moreover, performance management is not merely arranged democratically but also inversed, such that evaluating performance is not a top-down process that is implemented throughout the organization but one that is generated bottom-up, where members evaluate how well managers and leaders in organizations are able to live up to the principles of the dignified organization [53].

3.4. Reward Distribution

Rewards (financial, but also non-financial) have to be negotiated democratically. In a dignified organization, rewards are based on sufficiency rather than abundance [54]. This means that growth in salary is not a goal as such and that rewards, income and benefits are distributed according to need and democratically agreed upon [7,23]. This also means that upper limits can be set within organizations, such that the highest-level managers cannot reap extraordinary rewards at the expense of the lowest earners. Being tied to each other, a dignity lens assumes that any growth in salary is first based on the lowest pay scales and for the highest earners is only based on sufficiency. Psychoanalytic theory [41] teaches that materialistic desire is rooted in fantasy, and it is through traversing the fantasy that a notion of sufficiency can arise or the idea that income and money are merely a means and not an end in themselves. Finally, organizations in a dignity paradigm save money and resources in good times, such that in bad times, the organization can survive. This simple principle is far from self-evident in the capitalist economy but would be necessary to be able to protect the dignity of people in good and in bad times.

3.5. Involvement and Participation

Dignity is centrally linked to democracy [23]. In other words, dignity can only be protected and respected when people are centrally involved in decisions that affect themselves. Top-down decision making, the basis of the capitalist enterprise, strips people of their dignity. Dignity can only be respected when people have true involvement in deciding the course of action in the organization. Such participation can be organized directly in teams or indirectly through representative democracy in organizations, whereby leaders are elected to represent the interests of the workers. Central to this principle is the notion of (true) empowerment or the strengthening of the psychological capabilities of people in the organization to make decisions that protect and promote the dignity of themselves and of others [55].

3.6. Exit

In a utilitarian HRM paradigm, workers can be dismissed when they are no longer needed or when the organization is in financial difficulties. However, in a dignity paradigm, workers have employment security, which means that it is not self-evident that workers can naturally stay with organizations. When there are difficult financial circumstances, or when workers can no longer conduct meaningful work, it may be more dignified if workers are supported into new roles or into new organizations. When there are conflicts, it may also be more dignified if workers can contribute elsewhere. However, in all such processes, it is the dignity of workers that is central. Workers are no longer mere subjects to be treated as disposable instruments for organizational profit, but their dignity is central. Governments and sector-level organizations can play an important role in supporting workers across organizations or sectors, depending on where there is a stronger need for human capabilities.

3.7. Outcomes

Finally, a dignity paradigm focuses on intrinsic rather than extrinsic outcomes [17,23]. Intrinsic outcomes are those outcomes which have meaning and lead to greater participation of people in the workplace and the promotion of dignity. An example of an extrinsic outcome concerns innovation [56], which is increasingly important in the neoliberal economy. While innovation primarily refers to the introduction of new products or services through which organizational profitability can be generated, innovation does not have to produce any social value. For instance, the growth of financial innovation (e.g., financial derivatives) and offshoring services (e.g., tax avoidance schemes) help organizations to create greater profit, but this occurs at the expense of wider society. Hence, the notion of introducing something new under the label of innovation does not guarantee dignity. Therefore, a dignity paradigm focuses on intrinsic outcomes and thus asks whether certain ‘traditional’ HRM outcomes also lead to outcomes which are relevant for people and communities.

However, this does not mean that a dignity focus would not lead to extrinsic outcomes for organizations such as viability and better customer satisfaction. In contrast, it would be quite likely that when organizations prioritize dignity, it may lead to more extrinsic outcomes due to the positive effects on employee well-being and motivation (see, e.g., [16,57] for empirical examples of the relationships of dignity with employee well-being and behavior). Nonetheless, such extrinsic outcomes are potential side effects of a dignity paradigm, rather than the inherent focus of the organizing principle as such.

For individuals and societies, dignity offers concrete positive outcomes, including better individual well-being as well as protection of the environment and the planet [23]. Improved well-being among the population has important ramifications for society generally, not merely because of decreased health-care costs but also because it allows people to more easily find meaning in life and contribute to the restoration and protection of the planet. Other relevant outcomes of Sustainable HRM with dignity principles include dignity itself (its protection and promotion), experienced meaning and meaningfulness, health and well-being, the extent to which individuals can be democratic citizens, decent work, financial sustainability both for individuals and organizations, experience of the strength of the community, and planetary health and restoration of broken spaces (e.g., the extent to which polluted land is restored again, and where biodiversity flourishes).

3.8. Dignity in Context

The above discussion introduced a general debate on dignity in Sustainable HRM and how research and practice would unfold if dignity were developed as a central paradigm. Yet, dignity may also have different meanings depending on context: organizational, cultural, or geographical [36]. While dignity can be perceived to be one of the (few) universal values (as identified in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights), the manifestation and actual meaning of dignity is highly context-dependent [42]. For instance, a dignified number of working hours may differ substantially across countries and across organizational cultures and contexts. Therefore, Bal and De Jong [7] describe how dialog is essential to becoming aware of what dignity means in a particular context. In other words, the dialog between people in organizations (or more formally, workplace democracy; [58]) is essential to understand what dignity means for people in a particular situation. Organizations and managers can therefore focus on the implementation of dialog in organizations about what dignity means or various forms of dignity manifestations in relation to policies and practices.

4. Implications of Dignity for Sustainable HRM

Sustainable HRM reframes development systems as mechanisms for fostering long-term human capability, well-being, and organizational resilience rather than short-term performance enhancement [59,60]. Dignity has been defined, conceptualized and measured in previous research [16,42], and therefore, this work also offers a positivistic methodology for validation of dignity at work and in HRM. Existing measures for dignity measurement are available, which could be used in subsequent research that builds on the current approach. Future research, therefore, can assess the scientific validity of our work and the practical value of a dignity lens for Sustainable HRM.

By embedding dignity within learning and development processes, HRM can support autonomy, participation, and meaningful work, thereby advancing human sustainability [61]. This perspective positions development not merely as instrumental training but as an ethical and systemic commitment to preserving and expanding human capabilities over time [62]. Sustainable HRM conceptualized through Human Dignity Development implies a set of activities that facilitate learning in organizations, including practices such as induction, training, organizational development, talent management, coaching and mentoring [17]. Dignity would inform each of these practices in organizations and how they might be manifested in line with Table 2. For instance, mentoring is not merely valued as contributing to organizational performance [63] but has an intrinsic value. Mentoring in the context of Sustainable HRM is about the exchange between less and more experienced employees and offers an opportunity to build relationships between people. Such relationships have an intrinsic worth, contribute to meaning for both mentor and mentee and strive towards cooperation and a mutually beneficial balance for both parties. The establishment and development of mentorship programs in dignified organizations, therefore, do not have to be assessed on the basis of whether they deliver higher productivity, but whether they contribute to greater dignity for stakeholders in the program. Similar propositions could be formulated in relation to the other activities under the HRM umbrella.

4.1. Practical Implications

A question pertains to how dignity can be implemented practically in organizations. For productivity-minded managers, a dignity perspective may contrast with their strongly held beliefs and, therefore, be met with resistance. However, it is also imperative to assess the contribution of organizations to climate change and inequalities in society and the need to address such issues. Senior managers in organizations also carry a responsibility towards their employees and the communities beyond those organizations. A dignity paradigm may offer a translation of the need to address these to concrete practices in organizations. Consultants may work with managers to contribute to a shift where performance is balanced with dignity concerns. Hence, managers may engage in dialog with stakeholders (e.g., first with employees through means of workplace democracy; [23,58]) about how dignity may be integrated and sustained in HRM activities. Successful attempts to integrate dignity into organizational decision-making processes have been shown in research on cooperatives (e.g., [64]), which tend to decentralize decision making and enhance the likelihood of dignity being respected [23]. Smaller steps are also possible at the departmental and individual level where employees can focus on translating HRM activities into dignity in practice and everyday life. For instance, employees may use their roles as mentors to promote greater dignity and stronger interpersonal and community relationships within the department, organization and beyond. Managers could take Table 2 as a framework for improving and transforming existing HRM practices for greater dignity, and the list of actions in Table 2 provides managers with concrete suggestions for optimizing their practices.

For policy makers and professional bodies, a dignity paradigm may also be informative as it theoretically contrasts with a neoliberal paradigm and may contribute to broader societal priorities, such as social justice and reduced inequality. Firstly, it is necessary for such stakeholders to be aware of the integrated nature of a managerial ideology in the core beliefs of people regarding how work is constructed [3]. If societies and governments desire a just, equal and dignified society, there is a need to address such issues at the level of our core assumptions and principles about life, work and development. If such core assumptions are not addressed, it is unlikely that development will become an intrinsic value rather than remaining within the instrumental sphere where it currently connotes an economic value. A similar argument could be made for education, where students have to become aware of the managerial ideology underpinning the current instrumentalization and individualization of work before more dignified alternatives can be understood and valued as such.

4.2. Research Implications

As discussed above, human dignity has important ramifications for Sustainable HRM research. A dignity paradigm serves the interests of multiple parties, while being particularly concerned with the interests of those who are most vulnerable in the workplace. The promotion of the dignity of those at the bottom of organizational hierarchies is an important aspect of dignity theory. However, dignity is also more broadly important, as ultimately, all stakeholders are part of the same political–economic system that causes populism, inequality and inertia towards climate change [1,23]. In the long term, dignity is of interest to anyone in the workplace and beyond as it focuses on rebalancing the broken system in which organizations operate.

On the basis of such considerations, we propose the following suggestions. Firstly, it is important that researchers critically evaluate and assess the assumptions underlying their own research and arguments [19]. Managerial assumptions about the instrumentality of work and people in organizations are rife. When researchers formulate their arguments, it is of great importance to acknowledge one’s ideological underpinnings [3]. Only through acknowledging this will it be possible to achieve more pluralist science [34]. Practically, this means that researchers, in designing their research, arguments and work, explicitly take into account the underlying assumptions underpinning the respective paradigms. If workplace dignity is prioritized, it opens the door to decoupling the intrinsic value of HRM for human beings from the instrumental value of HRM for organizations. This creates the possibility to study the importance of human dignity as an outcome in itself instead of profitability and utility as ultimate outcomes of the organizational process [65]. Editors and reviewers of journals can also be encouraged to evaluate the assumptions underpinning research when assessing submissions [19].

Dignity also offers a perspective to postulate new research questions. An important question pertains to how organizations are able to protect and promote the dignity of people through development. New outcomes relevant for empirical research can be defined on the basis of human dignity. Human dignity can be investigated in relation to questions around worker participation, the ways through which development generates meaning, and the extent to which dignity can contribute to social cohesion in the workplace and social justice. These outcomes can also prevail over short-term profitability in organizations.

Moreover, a dignity perspective also offers the opportunity to reassess the importance of existing topics of research. The growing popularity of themes such as self-management [66], engagement [21], creativity, and sustainable employment [67] also means an opportunity to integrate these with a dignity paradigm. Through more explicitly linking dignity to these topics, outcomes of development that are not merely instrumental to organizations but also important in the context of dignity can be defined. An example is the recent interest in research on sustainable employment, which generally focuses on questions in relation to organizational benefits of investment and the employability of older workers [67]. Sustainable employment from a dignity perspective, however, assumes that it could be an intrinsic outcome in itself, which is inherently valued as it is indicative of the dignity of people and communities.

Research on dignity in Sustainable HRM can utilize existing empirical work on dignity (e.g., [16,42]), but more fundamentally, a dignity paradigm also means that participants in research are treated with the dignity that they each deserve. Research methods such as Participatory Action Research and Appreciate Inquiry may be better suited to investigate how HRM may contribute to greater dignity at work and how this unfolds in reality.

5. Conclusions

This article introduced workplace dignity as a potential alternative and a contribution to Sustainable HRM. Human dignity offers the possibility to conceptualize and extend our understanding of human behavior beyond managerialism. Dignity conceptualizes a way through which organizations and HRM can respond to global political–economic problems such as inequality, populism, utility maximization and climate change. Where managerialism underpins an exploitative relationship of business and the planet [39], organizations may treat people and the planet with more dignity once this is valued as an intrinsic outcome as proposed in our new dignity paradigm. Dignity also offers the potential for societies, organizations and individuals to focus on the long term, on stakeholders, and on participation and meaning for people in economic activities. As HRM’s core reason of existence within a HDD framework is the development of people, the integration of the development of dignity [7] within HRM research contributes to more practically useful ways to enhance the translation of the concept of dignity into practice.

Future research is needed to increase understanding concerning the role of human dignity in organizations. While dignity is a relatively new concept in management, more research is needed to formulate a precise understanding of what dignity is and how it unfolds in HR practices. This could be measured both quantitatively (e.g., through measuring worker perceptions of how HR practices contribute to dignity) and through other means, such as qualitative assessments of workers’ experiences of dignity within HRM. One way through which dignity, as the intrinsic, inviolable worth of people, can be materialized is through dialog between organizational actors [23]. A fundamental question pertains to whether dignity can be objectively assessed or whether it is, by definition, subjective and exists in the eyes of the beholder in terms of how people are or wish to be treated in organizations [16]. As this is likely to differ across contexts, such as across countries, it is necessary to have intercontinental and inter-organizational dialogs about what constitutes dignity in the workplace and how its manifestations can enrich HRM.

It is therefore important to contextualize dignity in the workplace and introduce a refined definition of dignity pertaining to the workplace [68]. There may also be important cross-cultural differences in definitions and understandings of dignity and how it is implemented in HRM [49]. While the current discussion has been primarily focused on Western perspectives, it is also imperative that dignity is investigated across cultures [36].

It has to be stated, however, that it is unlikely that there can be such a thing as the decoupling of top decision making in line with managerial goals (i.e., profit maximization and shareholder value) and shop-floor dignity enhancement. While in times of an economic boom, organizations may be able to both realize shareholder value and employee dignity and empowerment, issues arise in the case of economic downturns. In such situations, top decision makers in organizations will have to decide whether to prioritize shareholder value, invest in HRM (which will always involve financial investment through training, mentoring, induction, etc.), or a dignity paradigm for HRM. It is in those situations where organizations fail to ‘humanistically facilitate development and change’ ([13], p. 69) where a dignity paradigm is most needed. Hence, it may be unlikely in practice that an organization can keep emphasizing employee dignity and at the same time operate in a purely capitalist structure, as shareholders will demand cost-cutting (e.g., through laying off workers) to enhance corporate profitability. Such possibilities essentially compromise on dignity promotion within and beyond the organization.

As dignity shifts the perspective from the instrumentality of people towards the intrinsic respect of each individual, it has potentially radical and transformative implications for organizations and research practice. Therefore, our paper offers a main contribution to the literature on Sustainable HRM by offering a new paradigm based on dignity to rethink, redesign and develop systems for more humane and long-term viable organizations. The entire structuring and foundation of (private) organizations have become instrumental (i.e., focused on shareholder value) in the neoliberal era [26]. Whether it will be possible in the post-neoliberal era to restructure organizations and HRM research and professional practice towards dignity prioritization will be an interesting development in the future.