Green Human Resource Management

Renwick (2018) states that Green Human Resource Management (GHRM) focuses on employing the indirect links between firstly, organisations that adopt pro-GHRM practices in order to change the employees’ behaviour towards an enhanced care while they use energy resource and secondly, the employees undertaking more recycling and conducting a better waste management (Renwick, 2018). He further observes that such practices are staff-based actions that would eventually help the planet in the form of gradual reduction of emission, of pollution of local water suppliers and of organisations’ demands and needs (Renwick, 2018). The need to protect the natural world and the resources is becoming one of the urgent priorities for the society, managers and policy makers. GRHM practices facilitate employees' collective engagement in regard to environment protection. Such practices are conducive for employees’ voluntary behaviours towards the environment (Pinzone, et al., 2016). This GHRM workplace intervention can be seen as a means to justify the end goal of helping the society indirectly reduce climate change (Renwick, 2018).

GRHM intervention in Universities

GHRM can be seen as a system of policies and practices that governs employees of an organisation in order to guide the organisation towards environmentally sensitivity, resource efficiency and socially responsible workplace. In regard to universities, some may argue that GHRM practices may not find relevance with the working of the universities as they produce relatively lower emission than the corporate sector (Anwar, et al., 2020). Rayner and Morgan (2018), however, observed that universities have considerable responsibility to contribute to environmental awareness (Rayner & Morgan, 2018). Universities can conduct research and educate current and future generations about the importance of pro-GHRM practices. Rayner and Morgan (2018) assessed the theory of self‐perceptions of ability, motivation and opportunity (AMO) in regard to employees’ green behaviours. They observed that AMOs that are pro‐environmental can positively induced employees’ green behaviours (Rayner & Morgan, 2018). However, this aspect was found more prevalent at home rather in the workplace. They found that even though line managers could moderate the relationship between pro‐environmental AMO and the green behaviour of employees, they could not in regard to the relationship between environmental knowledge and green behaviour (Rayner & Morgan, 2018).

This is a gap where further organisations could work to leverage environmental knowledge in implementing green behaviour. Such gap sets further standards for making informed HRM policies and practices and directs GHRM interventions and management. One example that could elaborate further on this is that of the Bournemouth University. It adopted a campus-greening approach since 2005. In 2014, it appointed an Environmental Manager or a Sustainability Manager. It formed an Environment Strategy Committee with greater academic representation. Policy documents specified commitment to education for sustainable development (Shiel & Smith, 2016). However, Shiel and Smith (2016) observed that maintaining the momentum is difficult. They further observed that the university had several courses, for example, the MSc Green Economy, in place, which had less consideration of sustainability. There was a lack of extending further engagement in the form of raising the profile of the academic agenda and to align with the campus greening efforts (Shiel & Smith, 2016, p. 16). This is an example of challenges that universities could face while implementing sustainability plans.

Katerina Kosta explored the literature on sustainability research as presented in the UK university sustainability policies. She observed that the polices do not reflect the ground reality (Kosta, 2016, p. 263). She explored the sustainability policies of thirty UK universities considered the ‘greenest’ by the People and Planet University League 2015, and their conceptualization of sustainability research. She found estates and operations are the most popular themes presented in the policies, with research occupying the secondary position (Kosta, 2016, p. 263). She found that research is associated with creating new sustainability research centres and how to generate impact and funding. She found regional government legislation affecting the content of the policies. For instance, regions that are with Education for Sustainable Development implementation have higher sustainability uptake in the concerned universities (Kosta, 2016, p. 263). It could be observed that the basic challenge faced by universities in regard to GHRM is less intensity in academic engagement level where the policies are not aligned with the efforts invested. This seems to have been caused by the lack of uniform strategy and collaboration to that effect between and by the universities. The problem is further enhanced by lack of government support in the form of sponsored research and further funding.

Attaining a sustainable university

Velazquez and his colleagues (2006) defined a sustainable university as follows:

“A higher educational institution, in its entirety or part, that addresses, involved and introduce, on a regional or a global level, minimize of negative environment, economy, social, and health effects generated in their resource utilization in order to complete to its functions teaching, research, outreach and partnership, and inside supervision ways to help society make the transfer for sustainable lifestyle” (Velazquez, et al., 2006).

Velazquez and his colleagues (2006) state that the sustainable university model provides a clear perspective about the manner people achieve their initial momentum of sustainability initiatives and progress to the advanced steps towards becoming a sustainable university (Velazquez, et al., 2006). They, however, found that raising awareness levels about sustainability is a key functions of the policies. Such improved awareness does not guarantee translation into successful implementation (Velazquez, et al., 2006). This finding is similar to that of Shiel and Smith (2016). Lacking in awareness indicates universities lack of willingness to pursue the objective of a sustainable university model. Alternative, it may also indicates a restraint on the universities in terms of lack of legislative will to make sustainability policies governing universities and political will to fund research and other programmes.

The findings are indication of the reformative steps that could be taken to address universities’ sustainability guidelines and objectives. This is especially important given the role of universities in achieving the GHRM standards and objectives. For instance, the first climate emergency declaration was made from the Bristol University in April 2019. Some 500 students signed a petition urging the university to show commitment to sustainability. The University itself declared that there is a strong connection between mental health issues experienced by students and climate change anxiety (BBC, 2019). After the climate emergency declaration, there were over 20 UK Universities that formally made the declaration by January 2020 (Claire Hoolohan, et al., 2021). Claire Hoolohan and her colleagues examined sustainability policies of 66 UK universities in order to determine whether or not their planning and action commensurate with climate emergency declarations. The study focussed on the universities’ treatment of Scope 3 emissions and they focussed on long-distance business travel and catering as two intensive sources of the emissions (Claire Hoolohan, et al., 2021). The findings are similar with that of Shiel and Smith (2016) and Kosta (2016) that state that there is a gap between the policies and the greening effort. Claire Hoolohan and her colleagues found that there is no uniform standard that universities must comply in regard to thie sustainability goals (Claire Hoolohan, et al., 2021). For example, even though many universities sense their responsibility towards reduction in fewer trips and modal shift, they have underreported long-distance travel emissions. Few of the universities have targets and action plans designed for reducing air travel. Only 12 out of 66 universities had quantitative targets for reducing emissions (Claire Hoolohan, et al., 2021).

Irrespective of the content of the climate emergency declarations, universities do not seem to give primacy importance to the sustainability polices and objectives. The case of underreporting and that of lack of uniformity in standards applied to achieve the policies’ targets show that it is not necessarily that universities’ policy targets follow climate emergency declarations. Hence, the targets are not a representation of the content of the declaration.

Organisational behaviour towards green and sustainability initiatives

Institutions of higher education (IHEs) set multiple goals including high quality education, promoting research in various disciplines and enhancing the general community welfare. IHEs aim to create value functions that could translate the outputs in the form of teaching, research, and service into a measure of value that IHEs could maximise (Stafford, 2011). IHEs aims to make these outputs sustainable. Stafford (2011) observes that Institutions that focus on sustainability initiatives would have their alumni’s willingness to donate. Sustainable practices contribute to the society and this could increase its value function. Such practices may attract higher quality faculty and students thereby increasing the quality of the teaching and research activities (Stafford, 2011).

Organisational behaviour towards green and sustainability initiatives holds the key to successful formulation and implementation of sustainable initiatives and policies. GHRM practices aim to develop a sustainable environment friendly work behaviour that contribute to the society at large. In order to attain this position, the role of stakeholders such as the employees in an organisation, faculty and alumni in universities and the community surrounding the institution play a key role. This is where the role of human resource management (HRM) comes into effect.

There has been an increasing interest in CSR in the modern society, which stems from the growing pressure upon the organizations from the governments, customers, communities, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Firms must be more responsible and more involved addressing social and environmental concerns (Smith, 2003; Moir, 2001). Hirsig, Rogovsky and Elkin observe that the function of human resource management works towards developing a sustainable organization. Such function is positioned in order to facilitate organizations to become socially more responsible. The sustainability of an organisation is primarily connected with the knowledge, skills and energy of the human resource workforce. Investment in the human resource function will lead to the organisation attaining its environmental, social and economic goals. The quality of the human resource management (HRM) and the workplace practices determine the performance and productivity of the organisation (Hirsig, et al., 2014).

Podgorodnichenko, Edgar and McAndrew, while exploring the role of HRM in developing sustainable organisations and the challenges, observed that HRM provides strategic support, organizational stakeholder HRM's role in promoting and developing a sustainable workforce. employee advocacy, and social support. HRM attempts that employees and organisations deliver CSR goals. HR professionals must ensure sufficient development of employees' abilities, enhancement of their motivation, and appropriate opportunities are afforded. This will enable successful attainment of CSR agenda (Podgorodnichenko, et al., 2020). Muster and Schrader (2011) observed that employees must act as producers and consumers in order that GHRM could meet its full potential. The reason is that employees learn different kinds of behaviour at both the workplace and in private life (Muster & Schrader, 2011). In this context, a concept of ‘green work-life balance concept’ may facilitate an environmentally friendly behaviour amongst the employees. This may bring employee motivation and the retention of their jobs and build an sustainability conscious corporate culture which will impact both family and societal life (Muster & Schrader, 2011).

In this regard, the role of HRM comes at the forefront as a strategic partner and as a value-added function in order to recognise the importance of green practices, undertake environmental friendly activities, bring innovation in the existing processes, and align its practices with the policy contents. However, organisations must ensure that it HR has the right personal with the right experience to undertake all these activities. The reason being that a study conducted by Yong and Mohd-Yusoff (2016) involving smaller companies, found that the HR competencies of a credible activist, capability builder, innovator and integrator and technology proponent were found insignificantly related to GHRM practices adoption. They found that most of the companies surveyed had less than ten HR employees, which limits their capabilities to work on the competencies. Moreover. The limited HR experiences were not sufficient to be talking about the mentioned competencies. There was a lack of support from the management into integrating HR practices and sustainability initiatives (Yong & Mohd-Yusoff, 2016).

If the employees are environmentally conscious, they have more likelihood to voluntarily behave in an environment-friendly manner at workplace. They may voluntarily undertake more responsibilities beyond their job duties. Green recruitment and training and development programs have positive impact in making employees equipped with necessary skills and expertise in regard to environment management (Alnajdawi, et al., 2017). Thus, there is a significant relationship between an organisation’s green motivation and initiatives and and organisational behaviour towards the environment sustainability. In the context of universities, a culture of sharing specific environmental targets with the academic staff brings in the staff a realisation of direction and enforcement towards attaining the environmental objectives of their concerned university. It also increases staff’s motivation to invest extra effort towards achieving the sustainability objectives (Pinzone, et al., 2016). Thus, management policies that integrate environmental aspects will motivate and increase the willingness of concerned stakeholders, whether it be employees or staff, to make voluntary environmental efforts.

The focus on staff or employees as stakeholders in sustainability initiatives bring the primary role of them in attaining the objectives of GHRM practices. Brinkhu and fellow researchers in 2001 assessed the sustainability initiatives of universities across Canada and the USA. They found that it was the faculty and staff members who were the critical leaders in regard to the efforts of attaining campus sustainability (Brinkhurst, et al., 2011). They also, however, found that the conventional portrayals of the campus sustainability initiatives often obscure this finding. They therefore suggest that more attention must be given to the potential of faculty and staff leadership (Brinkhurst, et al., 2011). This finding appears to offer a challenge in implementing sustainability initiatives. The role of the faculty and the staff members are not given their due consideration. As such, the identification of stakeholders in the sustainability initiatives could be stated to be done inappropriately.

Basic challenges

The discussion so far have shown the increasing importance and urgency of integrating principles and practices of sustainable development in human resource management policies and strategies. It has also identified the universities as one of the stakeholders in promoting the principles and practices towards a sustainable society. Filho and fellow researcher recognise the role of the universities in this aspect. They observed that universities have critical roles in disseminating sustainability principles and translation them into practice. (Filho, et al., 2015). This makes sense given that they are becoming more aware of the impact of the environment. However, they explored how universities can translate the awareness and education of sustainable development into an effective practice (Filho, et al., 2015). This is particularly important given that the discussion earlier show a gap between the educational participation and environmental commitment. Filho and his fellow researcher observed that irrespective of the apparent need to for universities to develop holistic approaches to sustainability, there are only a few universities that have integrated education for sustainable development across their entire curriculum (Filho, et al., 2015). There has been a constant challenges faced by universities to deal with the theoretical and practical requirements (H & F, 2014). Although universities are increasingly becoming important in formally delivering environmental education; however, as observed earlier also, the challenges are in the form of absence of effective environmental and sustainability learning. The reason is that such learning and practices require interdisciplinary solutions, which some university may not be able to achieve (S, et al., 2005).

The challenges faced by universities in their sustainability initiatives are rightly observed by Sharp (2002). He observed that universities face a number of complex challenges. The challenges of environmental sustainability are complex in that they require changes in all the spheres of university business (Sharp, 2002). Such changes will require all the multiple stakeholders, including students, alumni, faculty, government, and administration. Their requirement would be exerting pressures for the concerned change (Sharp, 2002). Universities must especially establish an environment working group in order to undertake decisions, implement and control programmes and address any environmental concerns (Sharp, 2002). This requirement presents the insufficiency as universities lack behind in the required efforts. Any transformation is possible when the majority stakeholders formulate different priorities and concerned routines and structures (Sharp, 2002).

The discussion so far has presented the most basic requirement, which is itself the most basic challenge, which universities need to undertake. They must have an integrated approaches to sustainable development. However, this does not seem to be the case here. The role of the universities is increasingly pivotal in delivering efficient sustainable green initiatives. Despite this understanding, there has been a constant challenge about implementing an interdisciplinary approaches, which call for an uniform standard of practices across the universities. Further problem is caused by challenges of translating policies into efficient practices. There are challenges in the form of a lack of support in terms of funding of research and programmes; of academic reward systems; uniform discipline sustainability culture, practices and policies; and of constant failure to recognise the importance, urgency or scope of work required.

Continue your exploration of Domestic and International HRM with our related content.

Bibliography

Renwick, D. W., 2018. Towards an understanding of Green Human Resource Management.

In: D. W. Renwick, ed. Contemporary Developments in Green Human Resource Management

Pinzone, M., Guerci, M., Lettieri, E. & Redman, T., 2016. Progressing in the change journey towards sustainability in healthcare: The role of 'Green' HRM'. Journal of Cleaner Production, Volume 122, pp. 201-211.

Rayner, J. & Morgan, D., 2018. An empirical study of ‘green’workplace behaviours: ability, motivation and opportunity. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources , 56(1), pp. 56-78.

Anwar, N. et al., 2020. Green Human Resource Management for organisational citizenship behaviour towards the environment and environmental performance on a university campus. Journal of Cleaner Production, Volume 256, p. 120401.

Kosta, K., 2016. Sustainability Research as Presented in UK University Sustainabilioty Policies. In: W. L. Filho, ed. Sustainable Development Research at Universities in the United Kingdom: Approaches, Methods and Projects. s.l.:Springer International Publishing.

Shiel, C. & Smith, N., 2016. An Integrative Approach to Sustainable Development Within a University: A Step-Change to Extend Progess on Multiple Fronts. In: W. L. Filho, ed. Sustainable Development Research at Universities in the United Kingdom: Approaches, Methods and Projects . s.l.:Springer International Publishing.

Velazquez, L., Munguia, N., Platt, A. & Taddei, J., 2006. Sustainable university: what can be the matter?. Journal of Cleaner Production , 14(9-11), pp. 810-819.

BBC, 2019. Bristol University declares 'climate emergency'. [Online] Available at: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-bristol-47962554#:~:text=The%20University%20of%20Bristol%20has,demonstrate%20its%20commitment%20to%20sustainability%22. [Accessed 9 03 2021].

Claire Hoolohan, C. M. et al., 2021. Responding to the climate emergency: how are UK universities establishing sustainable workplace routines for flying and food?. Climate Policy, pp. 1-15.

Smith, N. C., 2003. Corporate social responsibility: Whether of how?. California Management Review, 45(4), p. 52–76.

Moir, L., 2001. What do we mean by corporate social responsibility?. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 1(2), p. 16–22.

Hirsig, N., Rogovsky, N. & Elkin, M., 2014. Enterprise sustainability and HRM in small and medium-sized enterprises. In: I. Ehnert, W. Harry & K. J. Zink, eds. Sustainability and human resource management: Developing sustainable business organizations. s.l.:Springer, pp. 127-152.

Podgorodnichenko, N., Edgar, F. & McAndrew, I., 2020. The role of HRM in developing sustainable organizations: Contemporary challenges and contradictions. Human Resource Management Review, 30(3), p. 100685.

Stafford, S. L., 2011. How green is your campus? An analysis of the factors that drive universities to embrace sustainability. Contemporary Economic Policy , 29(3), pp. 337-356..

Muster, V. & Schrader, U., 2011. Green Work Life Balance: A New Perspective for Green HRM. German Journal of Research in Human Resource Management, 25(2), pp. 140-156.

Yong, J. Y. & Mohd-Yusoff, Y., 2016. Studying the influence of strategic human resource competencies on the adoption of green human resource management practices. Industrial and commercial training , 48(8), pp. 416-422.

Alnajdawi, S., Emeagwali, O. & Elrehail, H., 2017. The interplay among green human resource practices, organization citizenship behavior for environment and sustainable corporate performance: evidence from Jordan. ournal of Environmental Accounting and Management , 5(3), pp. 171-184.

Brinkhurst, M., Rose, P., Maurice, G. & Ackerman, J. D., 2011. Achieving campus sustainability: top‐down, bottom‐up, or neither?. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 12(4), pp. 338-354.

Filho, W. L., Shiel, C. & Paço, A. d., 2015. Integrative approaches to environmental sustainability at universities: an overview of challenges and priorities. Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences , 12(1), pp. 1-14.

H, K. & F, M., 2014. Education for sustainable development (ESD): exploring theoretical and practical challenges. Int J Sustain High Educ. 15(2):1, 15(2), p. 188–207.

S, P., S, H. & M., O., 2005. Not yet learning for sustainability: the challenge of environmental education in a university. Int Res Geogr Environ Educ, 14(3), p. 173–186.

Sharp, L., 2002. Green campuses: the road from little victories to systemic transformation. Int J Sustain High Educ., 3(2), p. 128–145.