The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/1477-7835.htm

Corporate Corporate
environmental
environmental management management

A review and integration of green human

resource management and green logistics 431
Usman Al-Minhas, Nelson Oly Ndubisi and Fatima Zahra Barrane Received 25 July 2019
Department of Management and Marketing, Qatar University, Doha, Qatar Revised 17 October 2019
Accepted 27 October 2019

Abstract
Purpose – Green human resource management (GHRM) and sustainable green logistics (SGLOG) are some of
the mechanisms by which sustainable corporate environmental management could be consummated.
However, prior studies linking GHRM and green logistics are lacking in the literature. This paper extends prior
efforts by developing a model linking GHRM and SGLOG.
Design/methodology/approach – An integrative review of extant literature on green human resource
management and sustainable green logistics was conducted, and an integrative model developed.
Findings – Improving environmental performance is a key way that businesses can improve their corporate
social responsibility and brand image. The resulting model includes expanded components of GHRM (training,
development, compensation, awards and recognition, recruitment, and performance management) and of
SGLOG (transportation and shipping, warehousing, packaging, and reverse logistics). Categories of shipping
and transportation include the following facets: transportation intensity, modal split, emissions intensity,
energy efficiency, and vehicle utilization efficiency. The model also highlights the mediating role of
management and employee attitudes, knowledge, and skills in the GHRM-SGLOG link, as well as their
interaction.
Research limitations/implications – Green human resource management is associated with sustainable
green logistics. This association is theoretically mediated by management and employee attitudes, knowledge,
and skills. Top management support and influence of other stakeholders are key facilitators.
Practical implications – The paper suggests potential barriers to GHRM and SGLOG adoption/diffusion
and panaceas. It also proposes some key drivers of sustainable green logistics and corporate environmental
management.Firms must carry out their operations in ways that do not compromise societal and
environmental well-being. High economic performance alone no longer suffice. A balanced performance that
also emphasizes social and environmental well-being (the triple bottom line, 3BL) can be achieve through the
implementation of the proposed model.
Originality/value – The integrative model presented in the paper advances the current understanding of the
link between GHRM and SGLOG. The paper adds additional value by unveiling some key future research
directions.
Keywords Corporate environmental management, Sustainable green logistics, Green human resource
management, Environmental performance, Environmental quality
Paper type Literature review

Introduction
Sustainability is an important consideration for conducting business in the modern
era. The growing interest of environmentalists, green organizations and their pro-
environment employees, researchers, and the media and their resounding voices as they
keenly trumpet environmental concerns daily in the hope of creating greater awareness of
environmental vulnerabilities and ultimately bringing about behavior modifications are
difficult to ignore. Article 11 of the European Union’s Consolidated Version of The Treaty
on The Functioning of The European Union stipulates that “Environmental protection Management of Environmental
Quality: An International Journal
requirements must be integrated into the definition and implementation of . . .policies and Vol. 31 No. 2, 2020
pp. 431-450
activities, in particular with a view to promoting sustainable development” (Official © Emerald Publishing Limited
1477-7835
Journal of the European Union, 2016, p. 7). In accordance with this requirement and similar DOI 10.1108/MEQ-07-2019-0161
MEQ legislations (such as the regulations of the US Environmental Protection Agency),
31,2 managers in all industry sectors from primary industries such as agriculture and fisheries,
to manufacturing, and services have become more aware of the need to ensure that
their business operations are in line with sustainability principles in all aspects. Available
evidence shows that the achievement of sustainable environmental goals of the
firm is more feasible when there is a greening orientation and environmentally friendly
human resource policy and management system (Jabbour and de Sousa-Jabbour, 2016;
432 Ndubisi, 2011).
Indeed sustainability concerns can be controlled when industrial systems evolve
(Luthra and Mangla, 2018) and by the transformation of the organization and management
systems (Ndubisi, 2011) via mindful organizing and the adoption of mindfulness-
based approaches (Ndubisi and Al-Shuridah, 2019). Organizations that conduct
business operations in accordance with the principles of sustainability and promotion
of environmental well-being are considered green businesses. The term “green” connotes
environmental awareness, environmental well-being, sustainable, alive, thriving,
flourishing and so on and is inspired by the color of growing plants and nature. For
businesses, the implication of the green notion is that performance should not be measured
narrowly based on economic conceptualization alone, but instead more broadly, integrating
environmental and social aspects.
Consequently, in recent discussions of sustainability and greening, holistic approaches
such as the triple bottom line (3BL) has assumed the center stage and applied by an
increasing number of firms in their business operations and performance measurement and
management. The 3BL approach is considered to be a fundamental principle of sustainability
and encourages managers to simultaneously consider the social, environmental, and financial
or monetary value of any facet of their business operations (Hammer and Pivo, 2017;
Hourneaux et al., 2018; Ndubisi and Al-Shuridah, 2019; Seckin-Celik and Seckin-Halac, 2018;
Wang et al., 2018). The 3BL and similar approaches indicate that the human factor and the
environmental factor have close links, suggesting that factors related to human resources and
environmental sustainability are closely intertwined. Such concepts require holistic and
multidisciplinary approaches and frameworks for undertaking research into their linkages
and interactions, as well as their implementation.
As indicated by Jabbour and de Sousa-Jabbour’s (2016) study, in order to ensure that a
business runs in line with the green principles, managers need to consider how their daily
operations, including the overarching logistics function, can become more sustainable.
The importance of logistics in the global business community has been growing rapidly over
recent years and can contribute up to 10–13 percent of a nation’s gross domestic product
(Kovacs and Kot, 2016). The US Environmental Protection Agency estimated that in 2015, the
logistics industry in the United States was responsible for the flow of almost 50 million tonnes
of goods (Environmental Protection Agency, 2019a). Logistics is important to business
operations and central to supply chain management at both local and global levels. Logistics
is a very human-intensive field and thus has a close link with issues relating to human
resources (Santos, 2000). In the current move toward sustainability, green human resource
management (GHRM) and sustainable green logistics (SGLOG) are vital for successful
business operations.
Green practices are considered as part of corporate social responsibility (Cheema and
Javed, 2017; Grant et al., 2017; Bombiak and Marciniuk-Kluska, 2018). Therefore, businesses
that desire to maintain a good level of corporate social responsibility, either in response to
national laws and policies or to improve their public image or brand meaning, need to
implement green practices as part of this responsibility. Grant et al. (2017), in particular, argue
that maintaining corporate social responsibility through the adoption of greener practices
such as green logistics helps build the resilience of a company. It also helps to sustain
competitive edge by strengthening the firm’s customer retention power, especially in the Corporate
light of today’s green consumerism where a burgeoning number of consumers are making environmental
determinations of which firms to actively support or resist based on their pro- and
antienvironmental business records, respectively.
management
The rationale behind the integration of GHRM and SGLOG is manyfold and mostly
derives from the many parallels between the two emerging fields. First, logistics is a very
labor-intensive function and process; thus, it has a strong natural link with human resource
management (HRM) function. Second, since GHRM is vital for all parts of the supply chain 433
management (Jabbour and de Sousa Jabbour, 2016; Santos, 2000), it is also vital for SGLOG in
particular. Third, human resources have potential facilitating role in operations management
excellence (including logistics) (Boudreau et al., 2003; Santos, 2000), and HRM can inhibit
barriers to successful green logistics implementation. Moreover, as an advanced, proactive
business approach to environmental management, SGLOG requires the right attitudes,
knowledge, skills, and behaviors (Graves et al., 2013; Ndubisi, 2011) by management and
staff. Lastly, a holistic, multidisciplinary approach that draws on diverse human skills/
expertise is necessary in order to address successfully the GHRM-SGLOG link proposed in
this paper.
In spite of the aforementioned natural connection between GHRM and other functions of
the organization, there remains a paucity of integrative models linking these functions within
green organizations, specifically linking GHRM and SGLOG. Earlier efforts have addressed
these fields/topics separately or in isolation. This limitation was recognized by Jabbour and
de Sousa Jabbour (2016), who went on to link GHRM to green supply chain management.
Although the pace-setting effort of these scholars contributed to the GHRM and
sustainability literatures, the broad nature of supply chain management constrained their
effort, especially in delving into important details in their analysis and integration of the
green supply chain components. Clearly, supply chain management is a generic term
encompassing many facets such as logistics, which itself is classifiable into further
subcategories or subfunctions. These subfunctions need greening. The SGLOG concept and
model introduced in this paper encapsulate these subfunctions and build a more specific and
applicable model than the more generic ones.
In this paper, we capture all aspects of logistics where greening is applicable and link these
essential components and dimensions with those of GHRM. This includes the following
logistics functions: transportation and shipping (including routing and networking,
emissions intensity, energy efficiency, vehicle utilization efficiency, modal split, and
transportation intensity); warehousing (namely design and practices); and packaging
(including materials and design). In addition, the model addresses the mediating role of
personnel and management attitudes, knowledge, and skills in the relationship between
GHRM and SGLOG, to add to its novelty. By focusing specifically on logistics, a very
important component of supply chain management, and arguably one with the most impact
on the environment, we were able to conduct a detailed analysis and provide an integrative
model capturing these finer details and components. By this effort, we fill a long-standing
void and contribute to the literature on sustainability, environmental performance, GHRM,
and green logistics.
In the next section, we describe the research procedure adopted in this paper, followed by a
critical analysis of extant literature in the respective fields. The integrated model is discussed
in the penultimate section, followed by the last section on implications and future research
directions.

Research method
Given the increasing importance of sustainability, the need for firms to achieve greater
performance in all 3BL measures (i.e. economic, environmental, and social), and the evidently
MEQ important role that greening the logistics and human resource functions can play in these,
31,2 this paper explores the link between GHRM and green logistics. This study develops an
integrative conceptual model linking these two important functions/constructs and their
respective components/dimensions.
Specifically, this paper draws on the conceptual model by Jabbour and de Sousa Jabbour
(2016) that links GHRM and green supply chain management, with further refinements,
modifications, and extensions, and applies it to SGLOG. Green logistics is a key aspect of
434 supply chain management that applies to most industry sectors, from service industries to
primary industries, and arguably one with most important impact on environmental
sustainability. Besides, it has many components or facets that deserve detailed attention and
prior studies have not linked green logistics components with the components of GHRM.
In order to develop the conceptual model, this research followed similar methodological
approach to Jabbour and de Sousa Jabbour (2016), Borchardt et al. (2019), and Sousa Jabbour
et al. (2019). The research involves the following five stages:
Stage (1): Problem identification through a search of extant literature (in conventional
databases) for an integrative model linking the concepts
Stage (2): Review of isolated materials or studies on the subjects
Stage (3): Identification of common threads shared by the two concepts in theory and
practice
Stage (4): Proposal for integration of GHRM and SGLOG based on the shared
characteristics, with justifications from the literature, and the construction of the
framework
Stage (5): Presentation of the implications for model implementation and knowledge
advancement and suggestions for further research.
The idea to develop a theoretical or conceptual model linking GHRM and SGLOG originated
from the lack of prior studies linking these two aspects of operations management (stage 1).
It continues with the need to take a holistic approach to the topic based on and informed by
existing theory and scholarly research and to ensure that the model is useful for researchers
and practitioners and offers significant future research potential (stages 2–5).
In the link between GHRM and supply chain management, Jabbour and de Sousa
Jabbour (2016) consider different dimensions of GHRM, arguing that if these practices are
conducted in line with sustainable practices, then they will enable a business to implement
GHRM successfully. They outline the different upstream and downstream components of
the supply chain and supply chain management, which include internal environmental
management, purchasing, collaborating with customers, eco-design, recovery of
investments, and reverse logistics. Similar to the situation with GHRM, all the different
components of the supply chain need to be conducted in a way that maximizes
sustainability for the supply chain management practices to be considered as green.
However, the model failed to distinguish between rewards and compensation or between
training and development in the areas of GHRM. On the other hand, although their model
did consider reverse logistics, logistics was not treated in necessary detail. A separate and
detailed treatment of logistics is warranted not only because it is a key aspect of the supply
chain, but also the salience of logistics within the supply chain has been highlighted since
ancient times, particularly in the military context (Hugos, 2018). Indeed logistics deserves a
separate treatment due to its importance, as well as its considerable impact on
environmental sustainability relative to other components of the supply chain
management. Additional aspects of GHRM were introduced into the model, and their
link with logistics specifically (rather than the supply chain as a whole) established.
 In this study, we conducted preliminary online searches for recent papers on GHRM and Corporate
green logistics in the Science Direct database with the following search terms: “green human environmental
resource management,” “green logistics,” “sustainable human resource management,” and
“sustainable logistics.” To ensure that the papers included in this review covered current
management
topics and issues in the fields of interest, the researchers read the individual titles and
abstracts to determine whether the resulting articles should be admitted into the pool.
The relevant papers were curated manually by reading the text with a view to identifying
themes and definitions that were relevant to the present study. The key findings relating to 435
the present study revealed through this process are discussed next.

Green human resource management

A range of recent articles has explored the topic of GHRM and sustainable human
resource management, including some that examine the different facets of GHRM that affect
environmental performance. Bombiak and Marciniuk-Kluska (2018) list selection,
recruitment, training, performance evaluation, development, and award systems as the
key components of GHRM. Similarly, Zaid et al. (2018) list hiring, training, performance
management, and compensation as the different components of GHRM that impact
sustainability, and Jackson et al. (2011) list performance management, development, training,
rewards, and compensation as possible GHRM practices, along with organizational culture in
general.
Regarding the importance of the different facets of GHRM and how they affect the
sustainability of business operations, the findings of the literature are somewhat mixed. In a
questionnaire-based study carried out in Pakistan, Cheema and Javed (2017) explored how
businesses were adopting GHRM as part of a move toward greater corporate social
responsibility. This paper found the need for green practices in the areas of staff selection,
recruitment of new employees, rewards, and training. Of these, Cheema and Javed (2017)
found that recruitment, rewards, and appraisal practices had the most profound influence on
the adoption of GHRM and that the increased environmental awareness of the managers had
the strongest influence on whether or not to adopt GHRM practices. The finding regarding
the importance of training on the adoption of GHRM was also supported by the work of
Arag~ao and Jabbour (2017), who found that the most significant barrier to the adoption of
GHRM was environmental training. Similarly, Niemann et al. (2017) found that employee
training has a strong influence on the adoption of sustainable practices. However, Masri and
Jaaron (2017) found that although GHRM as a whole is a key driver of any business’s
environmental performance, training has the least influence on sustainability, whereas
recruitment has the greatest.
The conflict between findings of Cheema and Javed (2017) and Arag~ao and Jabbour (2017)
and those of Masri and Jaaron (2017) regarding the importance of training can be plausibly
explained by the other findings of Cheema and Javed (2017) that environmental awareness of
the managers has a very profound influence on the adoption of GHRM practices. Similarly,
Bombiak and Marciniuk-Kluska (2018) argued that managers are key in the implementation
of GHRM, especially in the areas related to remuneration and nonfinancial incentives.
They also indicated that GHRM should have the aim of developing green workers and
encouraging environmentally friendly and aware attitudes at all levels within the business
environment. This suggests that a distinction needs to be drawn between training and
development in any consideration of GHRM, the distinction that the current study took
on board.
The distinction between training and development has been widely acknowledged in the
literature on HRM and in other fields such as higher education since the late 1980s
(e.g. Goldstein, 1989; Rowe, 1996; Ketter, 2006; Boehm et al., 2011). Sahu (2005) provides
a succinct distinction between the two. For Sahu, training is concerned with providing
MEQ a potential or employee at the lower levels of a business’s organizational structure with the
31,2 skills and knowledge needed to perform a specific task or carry out a particular role, whereas
development occurs when more experienced staff members, especially those at higher
organizational levels, increase their skills, awareness, or knowledge (Sahu, 2005).
Development can be self-directed or provided through formal sessions such as workshops,
whereas training tends to come through formal programs. Fitzgerald (1992) explains that
training tends to be a short-term process (less than 12 months), whereas development is
436 undertaken in the long-term. Seckin-Celik and Seckin-Halac (2018) underscore the importance
of considering long-term goals in the implementation of GHRM in their study of GHRM and
sustainable human resource management practices of Turkish banks, which found that
talent management, which takes a long-term view of human resources, is a key part of GHRM.
This suggests that any conceptual model of GHRM should draw this distinction.
The works of Zaid et al. (2018) and Bombiak and Marciniuk-Kluska (2018) also suggest
that models of GHRM should distinguish between compensation and rewards. Zaid et al.
(2018) distinguished between compensation and aspects of performance management, which
can involve nonfinancial incentives. Bombiak and Marciniuk-Kluska (2018) strongly
emphasized the importance of remuneration and reward systems in the implementation of
GHRM and stressed the difference between compensation and remuneration, versus
nonfinancial incentives such as praise, certificates of merit for good environmental
performance and recognition. Bombiak and Marciniuk-Kluska (2018) also note the role of
negative feedback and penalties for nonsustainable or environmentally harmful practices as
a strategy for green performance management.
The different practices that contribute to GHRM (recruitment, selection, performance
evaluation and/or management, training, development, compensation, and rewards) are
common to all HRM systems and not to GHRM alone. The question then is what distinguishes
GHRM from nongreen GHRM. According to Azmi et al. (2017), GHRM involves ensuring that
all employees act in a way that supports the environment (e.g. recycling and minimizing
waste) and involves the promotion and support of environmental awareness and knowledge,
green skills, and environmentally supportive attitudes. In line with the findings of Cheema
and Javed (2017), Arag~ao and Jabbour (2017), training and development are logical ways to
encourage such skills, knowledge, and attitudes. Along similar lines, Bombiak and
Marciniuk-Kluska (2018) outlined how negative feedback such as warnings and
reprimands for nongreen behavior also supports the implementation of green practices in
the workplace and thus forms a key part of GHRM.
Taken together and drawing on the findings of these different studies, it is clear that
GHRM involves the application of sustainability and environmentally friendly principles in
a number of aspects. These aspects include recruitment, selection, performance evaluation
and/or management, training and development, compensation (also referred to in the
literature as remuneration), and other rewards (nonfinancial incentives).

Sustainable green logistics (SGLOG)

Logistics in general can be defined as the system used to plan, organize, and control the flow
of goods, materials, and services from their point of origin or source to their destination or
point of consumption (Wang et al., 2018). It also includes the flow of information and values
(Kovaks and Kot, 2016). Wang et al. (2018) provide a valuable subdivision of logistics into the
categories of transportation and shipping, storage (warehousing), material handling and
packaging, as well as the information processes involved in such operations.
Logistics facilitates the delivery of four types of utility. It delivers goods, services,
and information needed by the customer (form utility), where the customer needs them
(place utility), when needed (time utility), with ownership title (possession utility). Imagine if
every customer has to do these by themselves, how adversely their individual efforts would
impact the environment and resources utilization. Thanks to logistics organizations that have Corporate
combined and absorbed these individual responsibilities for profit, and positive social and environmental
environmental impacts (3BL). Nonetheless, this is only the cradle of logistics’ sustainability
impact, deeper applications and impacts are evident and discussed in the following sections.
management
The application of sustainability principles to logistics ensures a firm’s logistics
operations do not have adverse effect on the environment. Sustainable logistics or SGLOG
revolves around reducing (not eliminating) the causes of environmental problems associated
with business logistics functions. SGLOG is the process of greening the logistics functions 437
such as transportation and shipping, warehousing, and packaging. It deals with managing
associated processes within transportation and shipping (e.g. routing and networking,
emissions intensity, energy efficiency, vehicle utilization efficiency, modal split,
transportation intensity), warehousing (including design and practices), and packaging
(namely design and materials), to ensure efficient resources utilization and lowest possible
carbon footprint. It also includes reverse logistics defined as postconsumption logistics,
including the process of collecting end-of-life products and transporting them for recycling,
reuse, or remanufacturing (Jabbour and de Sousa Jabbour, 2016; Teixera et al., 2018).
The ultimate goal of SGLOG is to among others reduce emissions, reduce the amount of waste
products, reduce energy consumption, align with environmental regulations and goals, and
increase awareness and motivate relevant stakeholders to practice the same.
In the literature on green logistics, the aspect of shipping and transportation has been the
main focal point, as shipping and transportation is the most expensive component of logistics
(Kovaks and Kot, 2016) and because shipping and transportation makes up 80–90 percent of
the carbon footprint of logistics operations (McKinnon, 2010). Green logistics, as opposed to
general logistics, is concerned more with considerations of sustainability and minimizing
damage to the environment rather than cost (Blanco and Sheffi, 2017; Wang et al., 2018; Aktas
et al., 2018), although green logistics, in line with the 3BL approach, will also minimize cost as
well as environmental damage. The primary concern of green logistics is reducing
CO2 emissions and pollution caused by transportation and shipping activities and to a lesser
extent storage and warehousing (McKinnon, 2010; Teixera et al., 2018; McKinnon et al., 2015;
Qaiser et al., 2017; Aldakhil et al., 2018). It also considers factors such as reducing noise and
vibrations and minimizing waste, including packaging waste (Blanco and Sheffi, 2017; Wang
et al., 2018).
The shipping and transportation component of green logistics can be addressed through
six main approaches (McKinnon, 2010; McKinnon et al., 2015; Aktas et al., 2018) and two
approaches each for warehousing and packaging. These approaches are summarized in
Table I.
As shown in Figure 1, transportation is a huge contributor to carbon intensity of energy
use. Teixera et al.’s (2018) and Macharis and Kin’s (2017) observation that environmental
damage will occur if inadequate or inappropriate choices are made regarding the
transportation and shipping of products leading to a failure of green logistics underscores
the significant impact of transportation and shipping function on environmental
sustainability or vulnerability. Furthermore, wrong choices and failure to implement
environmentally friendly or sustainable principles can also lead to increased air pollution or
increased waste. Teixera et al. (2018) also stress that a company’s investment in training the
staff and employees has a strong influence on adoption of green logistics principles,
highlighting the natural link between green logistics and GHRM and further justifying the
conceptual model proposed in the present research. Similarly, according to Macharis and Kin
(2017), one of the key ways of improving the sustainability of the shipping and transportation
aspect of logistics, especially in the area of within-city deliveries, is to increase awareness and
to involve multiple stakeholders in the process. Indeed, one of the key roles of GHRM
especially in green organizations is to create awareness and to promote the organization’s
MEQ Component Definition Environmental performance considerations
31,2
Transportation and shipping
Transport Balancing the ratio of freight movements Considers the economic and environmental value
intensity (measured as tonne-km) to economic output or of shipping goods from one point to another, as well
gain as whether it is cost-effective to undertake. Cost
here includes financial and nonfinancial
Example: Deciding whether or not to procure
438 cheaper materials from a more distant source that
involves higher transport costs and potentially
more harm to the environment
Modal split The proportion of tonne-km carried by CO2 and Selection of the most appropriate mode for
emissions-intensive modes of transportation and transporting particular materials, taking into
shipping (e.g. road and air) to tonne-km carried by account time sensitivity
less emissions-intensive modes (e.g. ship, rail) Example: Deciding which goods or services need to
be delivered more quickly and which can be
shipped via a less emissions-intensive mode
without sacrificing customer satisfaction or
product quality
Vehicle Amount of transport and traffic required to Ensuring that the number of miles traveled per
utilization transport a given volume of freight, measured as vehicle is as low as possible, to achieve optimal
efficiency the ratio of vehicle-km to tonne-km number of trips, engine hours, and overall fuel
consumption
Energy The energy requirements of transport, evaluated Choice of vehicle fleet composition and decisions
efficiency via the ratio of energy consumption (measured as by drivers as to driving style and behaviors that
kJ or mJ or as the level of emissions) to vehicle-km eliminate energy waste
Also involves decisions as to the timing of
transportation (e.g. peak vs off-peak hours), as
energy efficiency can be affected by traffic
conditions
Emissions The emissions (primarily CO2 emissions but also Evaluating the emissions produced by petrol and/
intensity considering other greenhouse gases and or diesel-powered vehicles versus those produced
pollutants such as particulate matter) of the by the source of energy generation for electrically
energy source powered vehicles
Figure 1 shows that transportation (a component of
logistics) ranked highest in terms of emission
intensity in the United States
Freight The routes used to transport goods and services, Deciding the most effective route to take, balancing
networks and as well as the location of warehouses and storage timeliness, reduction of vehicle-km and traffic
routes depots congestion, in order to minimize resources
utilization and adverse environmental impact
Warehousing
Design Deals with issues such as location, number of Warehouse location decision can be based on need
units, size, and other warehouse design matters for proximity to market or source of supply. The
number of units of facility, the size of each unit, and
the choice between dry and cold storage systems
are other important design decisions. Each option
means a different outcome for green logistics and
overall environmental impact of the focal firm’s
logistics function
Practices Related to the deployment of human and Decisions and efforts to minimize the distance
nonhuman resources in carrying out warehousing products are moved within the warehouse during
function the course of receiving, storage, and shipping, all of
which can help to reduce environmental
vulnerability and maximize efficiency in resources
utilization
Making the best use of labor when receiving,
Table I. shipping, and handling products and choosing the
Components of kinds of mechanical equipment that minimizes
logistics and greening waste or maximizes efficiency
considerations
(continued )
Component Definition Environmental performance considerations
Corporate
environmental
Packaging management
Materials Include paper, glass, plastics, paperboards, and Decision on the adoption of biodegradable or
metals (including aluminium, foils and laminates, nonbiodegradable materials in making packages
tinplate, and tin-free steel), used to make contain determines the environmental impact of a firm’s
and protect products logistics function. Green logistics largely uses
biodegradable materials in containers and 439
packages
Design The shape of a product’s container, labels, Decision to design containers or covers for a single
graphics, or text and everything on the outside of use (disposable) or multiple use (reusable)
the product differentiates green from nongreen logistics. Both
reusable and biodegradable containers are
environmentally friendly and supportive of green
logistics goals compared to disposable and
nonbiodegradable containers
Reverse logistics
Reverse logistics Refers to postconsumption logistics, including the Decision to collect end-of-life products and
process of returning purchased items or collecting transport them to source for recycling, reuse, or
end-of-life products and transporting them to remanufacturing is in line with green logistics
source or for disposal principle. Not all reverse logistics are for purposes
of reuse, recycling, or remanufacturing. Those that
end up in landfill sites and cause considerable
environmental damage are at odds with green
logistics principle Table I.

environmental policies and initiatives among members and the larger stakeholder groups.
In an empirical study of logistics services providers in Thailand, Sureeyatanapas et al. (2018)
found promotion of green driving practices as the most widely used methods of applying
green logistics. They also reported a link between the adoption and application of such
practices and driver training and/or development.
The issue of shipping and transportation is complex, and the solution that optimizes
the sustainability of logistics and minimizes harm to the environment is not always
simple, as shown by the different accounts in the literature. For example, although
Teixera et al. (2018) argue that green logistics can be achieved by replacing fossil fuels
with other alternatives such as electricity, McKinnon (2010) points out that electricity
generation can also produce emissions, because the currently available electric vehicle
fleet are inadequate to transport larger volumes, leading to increased vehicle-km and
thus increasing environmental impacts.
Warehousing has attracted less attention in the literature on green logistics, given that the
primary source of environmental impact within the field of logistics is the shipping and
transportation sector (see Figure 1). Nevertheless, McKinnon et al. (2015) indicate that
warehousing can also have an impact on the environment, as the provision of adequate
warehousing can increase energy consumption for lighting, security, and temperature control
(Grant et al., 2017), as well as the land use requirements of a business. Furthermore, green
warehousing also needs to consider the social impact in the form of worker safety, in
accordance with 3BL principles (Wahab et al., 2018). Green warehousing also has an
impact on waste minimization (Burinskiene et al., 2018). Thus, several studies have
considered the role of warehousing practices and their implications for green logistics
(e.g. Tan et al., 2010; Wahab et al. 2018; Bartolini et al., 2019). Similar to the findings of
Macharis and Kin (2017), Wahab et al. (2018) underline the importance of involving multiple
stakeholders in the implementation of green warehousing practices, especially employees
and managers, which once again highlights the importance of GHRM for the adoption of
green logistics practices.
MEQ U.S carbon intensity of energy use by sector (1975-2016)
kilograms carbon dioxide per million British thermal units
31,2 80 sectors consunming
primary energy
70 transportation
60 commercial
residential
50
electric power
440 40 industrial

30
20
10
Figure 1. 0
US carbon intensity 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 eia
historical curve
Source: US Energy Information Administration

Packaging, understood as the way products and materials are protected and contained
during transportation and storage (Hellstr€om and Ollson, 2017), is another key component of
logistics. Packaging plays a key role within green logistics, as it generates a significant
stream of waste (Blanco and Sheffi, 2017) and can also lead to waste and inefficiency in other
aspects of logistics such as warehousing, especially if the packaging is poorly designed
(Garcıa-Arca et al., 2017). Well-designed packaging, on the other hand, can improve the
sustainability of business operations, for example, by reducing food waste through spoilage
(Hellstr€om and Ollson, 2017). Thus green logistics that focuses on packaging is concerned
with practices relating to the selection and design of the materials used for packaging
(Grant et al., 2017; Hellstr€om and Ollson, 2017) as well as packaging requirements
(Garcıa-Arca et al., 2017) and filling rates (Hellstr€om and Ollson, 2017).
A final area that has attracted much recent attention in the literature on sustainable
business management practices is that of reverse logistics and the creation of a closed-loop
supply chain (Govindan and Soleimani, 2017). In a recent review of extant literature, Prajapati
et al. (2019) identified 449 published articles on the topic of reverse logistics, an indication of
the strong emphasis given to this topic by researchers and analysts. Reverse logistics is the
process of recovering materials, unused products, and end-of-life products from the consumer
and returning them to the point of origin (Jabbour and de Sousa Jabbour, 2016). Reverse
logistics includes all of the facets of green logistics in general such as shipping and
transportation, packaging and warehousing, and also aspects of handling end-of-life
products such as recycling (Grant et al., 2017). According to Entezaminia et al. (2017), green
reverse logistics can be optimized by locating collection centers appropriately, which enables
those involved in the process of shipping and transporting used packages and end-of-life
products to minimize carbon emissions through addressing vehicle utilization efficiency.
Returnable packaging is another mechanism for implementing reverse logistics as a part of
the wider drive toward green logistics (Garcıa-Arca et al., 2017).
In summary, green logistics comprises the adoption of sustainable practices that
minimize harm to the environment during the process of ensuring the supply or flow
of goods, services, and information from source to point of need/consumption and then
back again in a closed loop system that includes reverse logistics. The logistics system
includes a number of key facets, namely shipping and transportation, warehousing
and storage, packaging and reverse logistics systems. All of these facets are interrelated,
and each involves a number of factors or considerations that have to be borne in mind
to ensure compliance with the principles of green logistics. For example, shipping and
transportation, which is the most significant component of green logistics and has the Corporate
most significant impact on the environment, must address transport intensity, modal split, environmental
vehicle utilization efficiency, emissions intensity, energy efficiency, and effective routing
and network design. Warehousing, on the other hand, must consider energy consumption,
management
optimal utilization, and worker safety in order to store goods and materials in accordance
with the principles of 3BL thinking. Packaging, on the other hand, has to consider design
and materials in order to minimize the generation of waste and inefficient transportation
and storage. Also highlighted earlier, packaging also has a close link with reverse 441
logistics, as packaging material and design have a strong influence on recycling, which is a
key component of reverse logistics.
A key outcome of this literature review into the key components of GHRM and SGLOG is
the unveiling of the link and interface between them, on the basis of which the paper now
develops and presents an integrative conceptual model linking GHRM and SGLOG.
This model and its managerial implications are discussed in the next section.

Integrative GHRM-SGLOG model and the managerial implications

With the drive to improve firms’ environmental sustainability impact and corporate social
responsibility, firms must leverage both GHRM and SGLOG as they both have key roles to
play. Logistics is a very human-intensive function in business operations, with human labor
mainly used to carry out most processes involved in logistics operations. From receiving and
processing orders from customers, receiving incoming goods and storing them in
warehouses, managing the inventory of warehouses, loading goods prior to delivery and
unloading them at the destination, to driving or operating the vehicles used to transport the
goods (Cirulisa and Gintersa, 2013), human labor is critical. For example, the road transport
logistics (trucking) industry in the United States employs some 7.7 million people
(Environmental Protection Agency, 2018). As such, GHRM practices have a strong
influence on the adoption of green logistics practices, as GHRM can influence the
attitudes, knowledge, and skills of personnel who carry out the logistics operations.
An effective conceptual model needs to consider how the different aspects of GHRM affect
the different aspects of green logistics. The aspects of GHRM with the strongest impact on the
implementation of green logistics are that of training and development (Cheema and Javed,
2017; Arag~ao and Jabbour, 2017; Bombiak and Marciniuk-Kluska, 2018). Indeed, Jabbour and
de Sousa Jabbour (2016) argue that training (and development) is one of the first areas that
needs to be addressed in the move toward improved environmental practices and more
sustainable performance.
Training refers to short-term programs designed to give workers the skill needed for a
specific task, whereas development is a long-term process (Fitzgerald, 1992). Training has been
shown to have a profound influence on the sustainability of the shipping and transportation
function, especially regarding driver behavior, which affects the energy efficiency and, in turn,
the emissions intensity of logistics. The US Environmental Protection Agency estimates that
through its SmartWay driver training program, emissions of CO2, particulate matter, and NOx
have been reduced by 119 million tonnes (Environmental Protection Agency, 2018a). In France,
the Objectif CO2 program, which was developed in partnership with the US Environmental
Protection Agency with the aim of training drivers in environmentally friendly skills, has led to
a 10 percent improvement in fuel economy (Objectif CO2, 2019).
Training involves impartation of knowledge and information sharing. Transfer of
greening and sustainability information and values during training and development is
integral to GHRM. Knowledge impartation and information sharing via training are also vital
in green logistics as demonstrated earlier. The fact that prior studies (e.g. Cheema and Javed,
2017; Bombiak and Marciniuk-Kluska, 2018) have considered the transfer of information to be
MEQ part of logistics suggests that GHRM and SGLOG have more interfaces and links beyond the
31,2 fact that they are both human-intensive part of business operations (Boudreau et al., 2003).
Because green logistics involves practices that reduce fuel and energy consumption, it can
translate to cost reduction, a positive effect on company profits, which could mean higher
bonuses, salary, and wages for staff members. Indeed rewards and incentives can drive the
adoption of green logistics practices. Rewards can also serve as further motivation for
managers and staff to invest more of their time and effort in SGLOG and greening of the firm
442 in general. It is evident that the savings at the company level for implementing green logistics
practices can be high. For example, in the United States, the Environmental Protection
Agency’s SmartWay training program has saved logistics companies in the US $33.4 billion
in fuel costs alone from 2004 to 2018. (Environmental Protection Agency, 2018).
Nonfinancial incentives are also useful for promoting green logistics. At the firm level,
official recognition schemes such as the European Lean and Green Logistics recognition
program (Lean and Green Europe, 2019) have been developed to promote sustainable and
green logistics practices in the EU. This system uses a star rating system, which rewards
companies that have adopted green logistics practices, with a five-star rating given to those
who have achieved zero emissions and industry leaders listed and acknowledged on their
official website. Through GHRM that encourages teamwork, personnel associated with
logistics can thus be motivated to adopt green logistics practices to help their company
achieve such recognition and improve their standing as an industry leader, which comes with
greater brand awareness, brand meaning, and brand equity-all coveted sources of
competitive advantage. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recognizes and lists
the “SmartWay High Performers” and holds an annual award ceremony honoring trucking
and logistics companies that have achieved excellent environmental performance in the area
of green logistics (Environmental Protection Agency, 2018b). This can enhance brand value.
Managers often shoulder the responsibility of deciding on applicable and viable training
programs, networking, fleet composition, internal rewards and compensation, and
infrastructure such as warehouse facilities and vehicle fleet composition. Development
programs and external reward and recognition schemes such as EPA’s, along with a desire to
increase the company’s corporate social responsibility and to avoid negative feedback from
legislative bodies and consumers, are likely to stimulate managers to adopt both GHRM and
SGLOG practices. Through GHRM’s positive influence on managers’ attitudes, knowledge,
and skills, SGLOG adoption by managers will rise.
Top management has been identified as key facilitator and influencer of green logistics
principles adoption (Niemann et al., 2017); thus, our conceptual model aptly reflects this
influence. As strategic decision-maker, top management’s leadership role, support, and
commitment to the design of GHRM and SGLOG policies and initiatives, as well as their
successful implementation, are crucial. By placing GHRM and SGLOG in top management’s
agenda, the right signal will go out to lower level managers and employees regarding the
level of importance and priority the company places on greening the organization for
sustainability and high performance on the 3BL.
Lastly, stakeholders are influential in the achievement of GHRM and SGLOG. Both primary
and secondary stakeholders bring different kinds of pressure on organizations. As primary
stakeholders, employees and managers have their own influence as elaborated earlier. Other
primary stakeholders such as customers, suppliers, and third-party logistics providers (i.e.
specialists who perform most or all of the logistical tasks the focal firm would normally perform
themselves) can influence GHRM and SGLOG implementation. Through active support for the
adopting focal firm by means of increased patronage of their offerings, referrals, or according
priority/preferred status to the focal firm, primary stakeholders can exercise their influence.
Secondary stakeholders, such as the media, regulatory agencies, and the court of law can also
use their influence to encourage adoption through praise, sanctions, and penalties.
 Based on the foregoing discussions and examples of how GHRM and SGLOG are Corporate
connected, the paper develops the integrative conceptual model illustrated in Figure 2. environmental
Figure 2 illustrates the interface between GHRM and SGLOG and identifies both primary
and secondary stakeholders influencing their adoption or assisting to overcome challenges
management
associated with the adoption. The challenges associated with the different components of
GHRM and SGLOG, illustrations, and the model’s usefulness are summarized in Table II.
443

Conclusions and directions for further research

The conceptual model and the preceding discussions in this study have a number of
implications for both researchers, practitioners, and policymakers interested or involved in
green logistics and GHRM. Firstly, the model and the literature review indicate that the factor
of training and development is the factor of GHRM that is likely to have the most impact on
green logistics. Specifically, training programs such as the EPA’s SafeWay program have
demonstrated profound impact on the shipping and transportation component of green
logistics and have been successful for achieving outcomes such as reduced emissions
intensity (Environmental Protection Agency, 2018). More research in this area can help
organizations seeking to improve the sustainability of the logistics function and business
operation in general understand how to apply and promote such training and education
programs within. Sureeyatanapas et al. (2018) suggest that this step is one of the main ways
that companies can use GHRM principles to improve their green logistics practices.
As highlighted by Jackson et al. (2011), managers are responsible for establishing the
organizational culture, which is a key component of GHRM. Further research on the link
between GHRM and organizational culture will add value to theory and practice.
Secondly, the model suggests that the managers and the employees (as primary
stakeholders) have a strong influence on the adoption of both GHRM and SGLOG, with the
managers having the greatest influence. Albeit, this reasoning is in line with the findings of
Niemann et al. (2017), and Bombiak and Marciniuk-Kluska (2018), research in this area is
inconclusive. One of the key research agenda here is to examine whether an increase in
awareness of GHRM and SGLOG by managers and those at higher levels of an organization’s
structure can create a more sustainable or “greener” organizational culture (Jackson et al.,
2011). Similarly, other primary stakeholders such as third-party logistics, customers,
suppliers, and top management may have important influence, so do secondary stakeholders
such as the media, regulatory agencies. These influences on GHRM and SGLOG and their
respective strengths are important future research agenda for interested scholars.
Different approaches can be used to develop the SGLOG goals through GHRM.
Organizations seeking to improve the environmental performance of their logistics function
can apply both vertical (top-down and bottom-up) and horizontal (peer-to-peer and cross-unit)
approaches. In top-down and bottom-up approaches, goals are respectively developed by
managers and subordinates. In the horizontal approach, peers within units or across units
determine SGLOG goals through mindful organizing – a social process that relies on
extensive and continuous real-time communication and interactions that occur in briefings,
meetings, updates, and teams’ ongoing work (McPhee et al., 2006; Ndubisi and Al-Shuridah,
2019; Vogus and Sutcliffe, 2012). More research is needful, especially those that test the
effectiveness of the two approaches.
To conclude, this paper is primarily theoretical and conceptual and requires
empirical evidence to confirm the proposed relationships. The paper’s model can guide the
development of research instruments and the conduct of qualitative and/or quantitative
studies on GHRM and SGLOG adopting organizations or those intending adoption.
Specific suggestions for further research includes studies aimed at:
 31,2

444
MEQ

Figure 2.
Integrative
GHRM-SGLOG model
Green logiscs

Reverse
Packaging Warehousing
logisitcs
Transportaon and
shipping

Materials Design Pracces Design

Vehicle
Roung and Emissions Energy Transportaon
ulizaon Modal split
networking intensity efficiency intensity
efficiency

Other Top
Managers' Employees'
Stakeholder atudes, skills atudes, skills Mgt.
and knowledge and knowledge

Influence Support

GHRM

Rewards and Performance

Training Compensaon Development Recruitment
recognion management
Factor Potential challenges Illustrations and model’s relevance
Corporate
environmental
GHRM management
Training and Lack of suitable green logistics (1) As a new field, green logistics
development programs training and development programs
Cost of training programs are not ubiquitous, and available ones
Time factors may not be suitable for different firms
or executives 445
(2) Workload and shortage of staff mean
that drivers or warehouse workers
may not be able to take time out of the
core business to undertake training
(3) Shortage of programs and trainers
could drive up cost and make training
unaffordable, especially smaller firms
(4) Managers may be reluctant to
undertake development or to
encourage development in staff
members in environmental skills
because of attitudes and lack of
awareness
Compensation Budget constraints (1) Management and stakeholders may
Workplace culture and priorities choose to allocate savings made
through applying green logistics
programs to other options such as
investing in low-emissions vehicles
and/or energy-efficient buildings
instead of increasing salaries or
wages or paying bonuses to staff who
practice green logistics principles
(2) Organizations with a reward culture
or system that focuses on the
individual achievement may
inadvertently discourage teamwork
culture or demotivate green
work teams
Rewards and Lack of adequate award and (1) Green employees and managers who
recognition recognition programs receive no recognition for their green
Organization’s efforts may become demotivated
award/recognition (2) Staff may not be willing to work
toward an award that is granted to
their organization if they are unable
to assume psychological ownership
of the company’s greening award and
recognition
Performance Lack of accountability and (1) Managers may not be accountable to
management transparency other stakeholders (e.g.
Experimentation and culpability shareholders), or fully transparent to
phobia employees on criteria for appraising
their green efforts and initiatives
(2) Employees may not report their own
or others’ failures to experiment with
or implement green logistics because
of fear of being held culpable for Table II.
genuine errors Challenges,
illustrations, and
(continued ) usefulness of the model
MEQ Factor Potential challenges Illustrations and model’s relevance
31,2
Recruitment Difficulty evaluating intangible and (1) During the interview and trial period
soft skills such as environmental of a new employee, it may be difficult
attitudes to observe qualitative factors such as
Availability of potential recruits environmental attitudes
with suitable experience (2) Shortage of experienced green
446 Lack of control over staff under the logistics employees and managers
control of third parties (3) If the focal firm is using a third-party
logistics provider, it is difficult to
monitor or control the actions of the
provider’s drivers or managers
SGLOG
Transportation and shipping
Modal split Suitability of different modes (1) Some modes (e.g. air and rail) may not
Cost of different modes be available in a particular location
(2) The cost of shipping goods or
materials by a particular mode may
be too high
Transportation Supply–demand (1) Market forces may provide a very
intensity strong driver that overrides other
considerations
Vehicle utilization Time factor (1) Perishable goods may need to be
efficiency Customer need shipped quickly to prevent
deterioration, even if this reduces
vehicle utilization efficiency
(2) Customers may demand rapid
delivery
Emissions intensity Availability of suitable vehicles (1) Electric vehicles may not have the
capacity to carry the same volume or
weight as diesel or petrol-powered
trucks
Energy efficiency Driver behaviour (1) Drivers may fail to adopt green
Vehicle fleet age driving practices if this exposes
them to the risk of being penalized for
late or behind-schedule deliveries
(2) Budget constraints may prevent a
company from upgrading their
vehicle fleet to less emissions-
intensive vehicles
Routing and networking Congestion (1) The shortest route (which maximizes
Availability and access vehicle utilization efficiency) may
also be the most crowded, thus
increasing environmental impact
(2) In places with limited access, the
possibility of choosing alternative
routes may not be available
GHRM role in Recruitment of drivers and managers who understand the concept of holistic costs
transportation and saving and the importance of high performance on 3BL performance. Training and
shipping developing them, compensating, rewarding, recognizing, and managing their
performance on transport intensity, modal split, vehicle utilization efficiency,
energy efficiency, emissions intensity, and freight networks and routes

Table II. (continued )

Factor Potential challenges Illustrations and model’s relevance
Corporate
environmental
Warehousing Cost of new infrastructure (1) Small businesses may not be able to management
Increased operational costs afford the costs of a warehouse
Inventorying and tracking facility and thus need to ship goods
Staff behavior and materials immediately
Safety and security (2) Tracking goods may be harder in a
larger facility 447
(3) Staff may not adopt green
warehousing practices (e.g. closing
doors to minimize unwanted heat
transfer) because it increases task
complexity
(4) More energy-efficient lighting may
compromise security
GHRM role in Warehouse staff and managers recruitment based on experience in green
warehousing warehouse design and practices. Training and development, compensation, reward
and recognition, and performance management, based on contributions of
warehousing practices to green logistics
Packaging Cost issues (1) Recyclable packaging materials may
Availability cost more than nonrecyclable
Nature of the goods and materials materials
(2) Suitable alternatives that are more
sustainable may not be available
(3) The perishable or hazardous nature
of the goods to be transported means
that reducing the amount of
packaging may produce a worse
environmental hazard
GHRM role in Engaging skillful or experienced designers of green packages, training and
packaging developing, compensating, rewarding and recognizing, and evaluating their
performance fairly and objectively
Reverse logistics External cooperation (1) Other companies may not be willing
Infrastructure or able to collect used packaging or
Increased transport vehicle goods to be returned to the source
movements (2) Vehicles may not be available to
collect returned materials
(3) A means of recycling or
remanufacturing end-of-life products
or packaging may not be available
GHRM role in reverse Deploying necessary infrastructures and equipment, engaging needed expertise in
logistics reverse logistics, training and developing, compensating, rewarding and
recognizing, and evaluating their performance objectively. Collaborating with
motivated third parties with compatible (green reverse logistics) values Table II.

(1) identifying the inhibitors and facilitators of GHRM and SGLOG adoption and estimating
which factors of GHRM and SGLOG logistics staff at different organizational levels
perceive as most important;
(2) investigating how different GHRM practices affect SGLOG and in turn environmental
performance outcomes and the combined 3BL;
(3) appraising the relationship between GHRM dimensions and knowledge, skills, and
attitudes of employees and managers and in turn SGLOG. In other words, the mediating
effect of manager/staff knowledge, skills, and attitudes in the relationship between
GHRM and SGLOG.
MEQ References
31,2 Aktas, E., Bloemhof, J.M., Fransoo, J.C., Gunther, H-O. and Jammernegg, W. (2018), “Green logistics
solutions”, Flexible Services and Manufacturing Journal, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 363-365.
Aldakhil, A.M., Nassani, A.A., Awan, U., Abro, M.M.Q. and Zaman, K. (2018), “Determinants of green
logistics in BRICS countries: an integrated supply chain model for green business”, Journal of
Cleaner Production, Vol. 195, pp. 861-868.
448 Arag~ao, C.G. and Jabbour, C.J.C. (2017), “Green training for sustainable procurement? Insights from the
Brazilian public sector”, Industrial & Commercial Training, Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 48-54.
Azmi, F.R., Musa, H., Shahbodin, F., Hazmilah, H. and Fam, S. (2017), “Implementation of green resource
management in Malaysia”, Proceedings of Mechanical Engineering Research, pp. 257-258.
Bartolini, M., Bottani, E. and Grosse, E.H. (2019), “Green warehousing: systematic literature review
and bibliometric analysis”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 226, pp. 242-258.
Blanco, E.E. and Sheffi, Y. (2017), “Green logistics”, in Bouchery, Y., Corbett, C., Fransoo, J. and Tan,
T. (Eds), Sustainable Supply Chains, Springer Series in Supply Chain Management, Springer,
Cham, Vol. 4, pp. 147-187.
Boehm, M., Stolze, C., Breitschwerdt, R., Zarvic, N. and Thomas, O. (2011), “An integrated approach for
teaching professionals IT management and IT consulting”, AMCIS 2011 Proceedings, Paper 72.
Bombiak, E. and Marciniuk-Kluska, A. (2018), “Green human resource management as a tool for the
sustainable development of enterprises: polish young company experience”, Sustainability,
Vol. 10 No. 6, p. 1739, doi: 10.3390/su10061739.
Borchardt, M., Ndubisi, N.O., Jabbour, C.J.C., Grebinevych, O. and Pereira, G.M. (2019), “The evolution
of base of the pyramid approaches and the role of multinational and domestic business
ventures: value-commitment and profit-making perspectives”, Industrial Marketing
Management, doi: 10.1016/j.indmarman.2019.05.013.
Boudreau, J., Hopp, W., McClain, J.O. and Thomas, L.J. (2003), “On the interface between operations
and human resources management”, Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, Vol. 5
No. 3, pp. 179-202.
Burinskiene, A., Lorenk, A. and Lehrer, T. (2018), “A simulation study for the sustainability and
reduction of waste in warehouse logistics”, International Journal of Simulation Modelling,
Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 485-497.
Cheema, S. and Javed, F. (2017), “The effects of corporate social responsibility toward green human
resource management: the mediating role of sustainable environment”, Cogent Business &
Management, Vol. 4 No. 1, article 1310012.
Cirulisa, A. and Gintersa, E. (2013), “Augmented reality in logistics”, Procedia Computer Science,
Vol. 26, pp. 14-20.
Entezaminia, A., Heidari, M. and Rahmani, D. (2017), “Robust aggregate production planning in a
green supply chain under uncertainty considering reverse logistics: a case study”, International
Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 90, pp. 1507-1528.
Environmental Protection Agency (2018a), “SmartWay program highlights for 2018”, available at: https://
www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-12/documents/420f18024.pdf (accessed 17 May 2019).
Environmental Protection Agency (2018b), “U.S. EPA’s SmartWay honors freight carriers for
exceptional supply chain efficiency”, available at: https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/us-epas-
smartway-honors-freight-carriers-exceptional-supply-chain-efficiency (accessed 17 May 2019).
Environmental Protection Agency (2019), “Why freight matters to supply chain sustainability”,
available at: https://www.epa.gov/smartway/why-freight-matters-supply-chain-sustainability
(accessed 17 May 2019).
Fitzgerald, W. (1992), “Training versus development”, Training & Development, Vol. 46 No. 5, pp. 81-84.
Garcıa-Arca, J., Garrido, A.T.P. and Prado-Prado, J.C. (2017), “Sustainable packaging logistics. The link
between sustainability and competitiveness in supply chains”, Sustainability, Vol. 9, p. 1098.
Goldstein, I.L. (1989), Frontiers of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, the Jossey-Bass Corporate
Management Series and the Jossey-Bass Social and Behavioral Science Series. Training and
Development in Organizations, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. environmental
Govindan, K. and Soleimani, H. (2017), “A review of reverse logistics and closed-loop supply chains: a
management
journal of cleaner production focus”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 142 No. 1, pp. 371-384.
Grant, D.B., Trautrims, A. and Wong, C.Y. (2017), Sustainable Logistics and Supply Chain
Management: Principles and Practices for Sustainable Operations and Management, 2nd ed.,
Kogan Page, London, UK. 449
Graves, L.M., Sarkis, J. and Zhu, Q. (2013), “How transformational leadership and employee motivation
combine to predict employee proenvironmental behaviors in China”, Journal of Environmental
Psychology, Vol. 35, pp. 81-91.
Hammer, J. and Pivo, G. (2017), “The triple bottom line and sustainable economic development theory
and practice”, Economic Development Quarterly, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 25-36.
Hellstr€om, D. and Ollson, A. (2017), Managing Packaging Design for Sustainable Development, Wiley,
Hoboken, NJ.
Hourneaux,F.Jr,daSilvaGabriel,M.L.andGallardo-Vazquez,D.A.(2018),“Triplebottomlineandsustainable
performance measurement in industrial companies”, Revista de Gest~
ao, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 413-429.
Hugos, M. (2018), Essentials of Supply Chain Management, 4th ed., John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NY.
Jackson, S.E., Renwick, D.W., Jabbour, C.J. and Muller-Camen, M. (2011), “State-of-the-art and future
directions for green human resource management: introduction to the special issue”, German
Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 99-116.
Jabbour, C.J.C. and de Sousa Jabbour, A.B.L. (2016), “Green human resource management and green
supply chain management: linking two emerging agendas”, Journal of Cleaner Production,
Vol. 112, pp. 1824-1833.
Ketter, P. (2006), “Training versus development”, Training & Development, Vol. 60 No. 5, p. 78.
Kovacs, G. and Kot, S. (2016), “New logistics and production trends as the effect of global economy
changes”, Polish Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 115-126.
Lean and Green Europe (2019), “Lean & green program”, available at: http://www.lean-green.nl/
over-lg/ (accessed 17 May 2019).
Luthra, S. and Mangla, S.K. (2018), “When strategies matter: adoption of sustainable supply chain
management practices in an emerging economy’s context”, Resources, Conservation and
Recycling, Vol. 138, pp. 194-206.
Macharis, C. and Kin, B. (2017), “The 4 A’s of sustainable city distribution: innovative solutions and
challenges ahead”, International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 59-71.
Masri,H.A.andJaaron,A.A.M.(2017),“AssessinggreenhumanresourcesmanagementpracticesinPalestinian
manufacturing context: an empirical study”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 143, pp. 474-489.
McPhee, R.D., Myers, K.K. and Trethewey, A. (2006), “On collective mind and conversational analysis:
response to Cooren”, Management Communications Quarterly, Vol. 19, pp. 311-326.
McKinnon, A. (2010), “Green logistics: the carbon agenda”, LogForum, Vol. 6 No. 3, p. 1, available at:
http://www.logforum.net/pdf/6_3_1_10.pdf (accessed 15 May 2019).
McKinnon, A., Browne, M., Piecyk, M. and Whiteing, A. (2015), Green Logistics: Improving the
Environmental Sustainability of Logistics, 3rd ed., Kogan Page, London.
Ndubisi, N.O. (2011), “Factorial and discriminant analyses of environmental sensitivity and initiative
of Nigerian firms”, Thunderbird International Business Review, Vol. 53 No. 1, pp. 19-36.
Ndubisi,N.O.andAl-Sharidah,O.(2019),“Organizationalmindfulness,mindfulorganizing,andenvironmental
and resource sustainability”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 436-446.
Niemann, W., Hall, G. and Oliver, K. (2017), “South African 3PL firms’ approaches to sustainable
supply chain management”, Journal of Contemporary Management, Vol. 14, pp. 204-237.
MEQ Objectif CO2 (2019), Connaissez-vous Objectif CO2?, available at: http://www.objectifco2.fr/ (accessed
17 May 2019).
31,2
Official Journal of the European Union (2016), “Consolidated version of the treaty on the functioning of
the European Union”, available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri5cellar:9e8d52e1-
2c70-11e6-b497-01aa75ed71a1.0006.01/DOC_3&format5PDF (accessed 13 May 2019).
Prajapati, H., Kant, R. and Shankar, R. (2019), “Bequeath life to death: state-of-art review on reverse
logistics”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 211, pp. 503-520.
450
Qaiser, F.H., Ahmed, K., Sykora, M., Choudhary, A. and Simpson, M. (2017), “Decision support
systems for sustainable logistics: a review and bibliometric analysis”, Industrial Management &
Data Systems, Vol. 117 No. 7, pp. 1376-1388.
Rowe, C. (1996), “Evaluating management training and development: revisiting the basic issues”,
Industrial & Commercial Training, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 17-23.
Sahu, R.K. (2005), Training for Development: All You Need to Know, Excel Books, New Delhi.
Santos, F.C.A. (2000), “Integration of human resource management and competitive priorities of
manufacturing strategy”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management,
Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 610-628.
Seckin-Celik, T. and Seckin-Halac, D. (2018), “Sustainability reporting on labor practices: an
examination in Turkey”, in Akkucuk, U. (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Supply Chain
Management for Sustainable Development, IGI Global, Hershey, PA, pp. 331-351.
Sureeyatanapas, P., Poophiukhok, P. and Pathumnakul, S. (2018), “Green initiatives for logistics
service providers: an investigation of antecedent factors and the contributions to corporate
goals”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 191, pp. 1-14.
Sousa Jabbour, A.B., Luiz, J.V., Luiz, O.R., Jabbour, C.J.C., Ndubisi, N.O., Oliveira, J.H. and Junior, F.H.
(2019), “Circular economy business models and operations management”, Journal of Cleaner
Production, Vol. 235, pp. 1525-1539.
Tan, K.S., Ahmed, M.D. and Sundaram, D. (2010), “Sustainable enterprise modelling and simulation in
a warehousing context”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 871-886.
Teixeira, C.R.B., Assumpç~ao, A.L., Correa, A.L., Savi, A.F. and Prates, G.A. (2018), “The contribution
of green logistics and sustainable purchasing for green supply chain management”,
Independent Journal of Management & Production, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 1002-1026.
Vogus, T.J. and Sutcliffe, K.M. (2012), “Organizational mindfulness and mindful organizing: a
reconciliation and path forward”, Academy of Management Learning & Education, Vol. 11
No. 4, pp. 722-735.
Wahab, S.N., Sayuti, N. and Ab Talib, M.S. (2018), “Antecedents of green warehousing: A theoretical
framework and future direction”, International Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 7
No. 6, pp. 382-388.
Wang, D.F., Dong, Q.L., Peng, Z.M., Khan, S.A.R. and Tarasov, A. (2018), “The green logistics impact
on international trade: evidence from developed and developing countries”, Sustainability,
Vol. 10, p. 2235.
Zaid, A.A., Jaaron, A.A.M. and Bon, A.T. (2018), “The impact of green human resource management
and green supply chain management practices on sustainable performance: an empirical
study”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 204, pp. 965-979.

Corresponding author
Nelson Ndubisi can be contacted at: olynel@hotmail.com

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com