See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/343630372

Characteristics of Sustainable HRM System and Practices for Implementing

Corporate Sustainability

Chapter · August 2020

DOI: 10.1007/978-981-15-5656-2_2

CITATIONS READS

10 3,044

1 author:

Sugumar Mariappanadar
Australian Catholic University
43 PUBLICATIONS 843 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Sugumar Mariappanadar on 09 February 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Characteristics of Sustainable HRM System and Practices for Implementing
Corporate Sustainability

Sugumar Mariappanadar
Peter Faber Business School
Australian Catholic University
Melbourne, Australia
Email: sugumar.mariappanadar@acu.edu.au

To cite this article: Mariappanadar, S. (2020). Characteristics of Sustainable HRM System

and Practices for Implementing Corporate Sustainability. In Sita Vanka, Madasu Bhaskara
Rao, Swati Singh, Mallika Rao Pulaparthi (Eds.), Sustainable Human Resource Management
- Transforming Organizations, Societies and Environment. Springer Nature Publisher,
Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-5656-2_2 (Book chapter)

Abstract

The current mutual benefits focused HRM practices have a limited role in enhancing
organization-stakeholder relationships to achieve organisational financial performance,
human/social and environmental outcomes of corporate sustainability business strategy.
Hence, sustainable HRM evolved as a discipline to facilitate a new understanding of
organization-stakeholder relationships. Although there are many definitions available in the
sustainable HRM literature, currently there is no established set of characteristics for
sustainable HRM practices. The characteristics of sustainable HRM practices are important to
operationalize an organization’s corporate sustainability business strategy using HR as a core
business competency. In this article distinct pro- financial, social/human and ecocentric
characteristics are proposed for each of the identified HRM practices for sustainable HRM
system to facilitate employee behaviours to achieve corporate sustainability outcomes.
Furthermore, the synthesis effects of bundles of HRM practices in the sustainable HRM
system to enhance integrated outcomes of corporate sustainability are explored. An attempt
was also made to theoretically explain the difference in characteristics of HRM practices
between the control, commitment (strategic), and sustainable HRM systems to feature the
distinct characteristics of sustainable HRM practices. Finally, practical and empirical
implications are provided.

Keywords: Sustainable HRM, sustainable HRM effectiveness, corporate sustainability,

prosocial HRM; ecocentric HRM.

1
INTRODUCTION

Today, stakeholders’ expectations of prosocial and pro-environmental organizational

behaviour have become an important disruption to the dominant strategic HRM practices to

improve profitability. Prosocial organizational behaviour refers to the positive social acts

implemented by organizations in their business activities to produce and maintain the well-

being and integrity of key internal stakeholders such as employees (Hahn, 2015).

Furthermore, pro-environmental organizational behaviour reflects maintaining and preserving

the health of the ecological system while attempting to utilize natural resources for economic

activities. It includes an organization’s comprehensive responsiveness to external

stakeholders (i.e., for our children and the society as a whole) as part of environmental

management. Hence, it is useful to develop HRM practices with pro- social and

environmental characteristics to satisfy stakeholders’ expectations of corporate sustainability

outcomes. Corporate sustainability is about the management approaches used by

organizations in integrating and achieving the three pillars (i.e. economic/financial

performance, human/social and environmental outcomes) of sustainable development (UN

Global Compact, 2014).

In this context, sustainable human resource management has started to emerge as a new

discipline within the field of human resource management (HRM) to aid organizations to

achieve corporate sustainability as a business strategy. In the literature, varied definitions of

sustainable HRM attempt to address individual outcomes of corporate sustainability. For

example, sustainable work systems (Docherty et al., 2002), HR-regeneration (Ehnert, 2009)

and unsustainable impacts of high performance work practices (Mariappanadar, 2003)

address the human/social outcome of corporate sustainability. Green HRM (Jackson et

al,.2011; Jabbour et al., 2010) focuses on the environmental outcomes of corporate

sustainability. Hence, a comprehensive definition for sustainable HRM is proposed to engage

2
human resources (HR) to synthesize and simultaneously achieve all three categories of

corporate sustainable outcomes. Sustainable HRM is designed to provide a sustainability-

oriented vision of HRM systems, policies and practices to synthesize and achieve the

competing and inconsistent financial, environmental and human/social wellbeing outcomes of

corporate business strategy. The synthesis effects of sustainable HRM are based on the

paradox perspective of management decision making (Miron-Spektor et al., 2018). That is,

the synthesis effects of sustainable HRM highlight the role of HRM practices to promote

employee behaviours to handle management decisions by dynamically integrating and

reconciling the tension/paradox created by the diverse outcomes of corporate sustainability.

A review of sustainable HRM definitions by Kramar (2014) indicated that the definitions

by themselves are inadequate to implement sustainable HRM practices to achieve corporate

sustainability because the definitions fail to explain the characteristics of sustainable HRM

practices. The characteristics of HRM practices are about the underlying organizational

motives which shape employee behaviours and attitudes at work to achieve such

organizational goals as corporate sustainability (Arthur, 1994; Nishii, Lepak & Schneider,

2008). The characteristics for sustainable HRM practices are useful to re-frame the current

HRM practices to operationalize an organization’s corporate sustainability business strategy,

failing which, the novelties of sustainable HRM would become just one more unusable trend

in the HRM jargon. Hence, the aim of the article is to theoretically develop sustainability

characteristics for individual HRM practices to be used in an internally consistent bundle of

HRM practices to achieve the synthesis effect of financial, human/social and environmental

corporate sustainability outcomes.

To achieve the aim of the article, initially a teleological perspective (Bacharach, 1989)

is used in theory building to identify the distinct characteristics of HRM practices proposed in

the bundle of sustainable HRM practices that facilitate employee behaviour and attitude to

3
achieve individual outcomes of corporate sustainability. Subsequently, theoretical

connectivity (Bacharach, 1989) is used to logically connect diverse literature, such as

HPWPs, sustainable HRM and environmental management, to explain the synthesis effects of

bundle of sustainable HRM practices to enhance integrated outcomes of corporate

sustainability. Finally, to explain how the proposed characteristics of sustainable HRM

practices extends the current traditional control-based and commitment-based strategic HRM

practices, a comparison of characteristic of control-, commitment-, and sustainability-based

HRM practices that are relevant to accomplish corporate sustainability outcomes are

explored.

The article makes multiple contributions to sustainable HRM literature. First, practitioners

and researchers will be able to develop knowledge about pro- financial, human/social and

environmental characteristics of relevant individual practices in bundles of sustainable HRM

practices which can be used to operationalize corporate sustainability business strategy.

Second, in a global context, the proposed set of characteristics for sustainable HRM practices

will enable practitioners and researchers to make cross cultural comparisons to reveal the

uniqueness and generalizability of these characteristics for implementing corporate

sustainability. Finally, this also lays the foundation for future research to explore the

relationships between, and the synthesis effects of, bundles of practices in the sustainable

HRM system to achieve integrated outcomes of corporate sustainability.

BACKGROUND

Strategic HRM practices highlight the mutual benefits for organizations and employees.

Hence, in the HRM literature, there are a well-developed set of characteristics of high

performance work practices (i.e., strategic HRM practices) that enhance employee

engagement, job satisfaction, and empowerment and which subsequently achieve

4
organizational performance (Guest 1997; Van de Voorde et al., 2012). However, early

sustainable HRM definitions in the literature indicate the unsustainable impacts of high

performance work practices on employees such as reduced HR conservation (Mariappanadar,

2003; Kramar, 2014), reduced HR re-generation (Ehnert, 2009), and increased harm of work

(Mariappanadar, 2012; 2014b). The harm of work from the sustainable HRM perspective is

about the restrictions imposed on employees by high performance work practices that are

designed to achieve organizational financial performance. Furthermore, it was indicated that

the harm of work is linked to obscured, reduced or lost psychological, social and work related

health well-being outcomes for employees as internal stakeholders (Mariappanadar, 2014a).

Daily and Huang (2001), Fernández et al., (2003), Jackson et al., (2011) and Jabbour et al.,

(2010) from the green HRM literature have indicated the importance of HRM to the

environmental management system (EMS) for achieving the environmental outcomes of

corporate sustainability. The ecological footprint perspective for EMS (Wackernagel & Rees,

1997) acknowledges both the role of natural capital in maintaining the health of an ecosystem

to support planetary life and the risks associated with its (irreversible) loss due to human

economic activities. Furthermore, they indicated that effective implementation of an

advanced EMS to reduce the ecological footprint by an organization is based on HRM

practices with ecological values (Fernández et al., 2003).

Finally, the synthesis effects definition of sustainable HRM proposes that organizations

while improving financial performance have a corporate social responsibility to

simultaneously reduce the harm of work imposed on employees and their families

(Mariappanadar, 2014b; Ehnert et al., 2015). The synthesis effects definition of sustainable

HRM highlights a type of simultaneous effect of HRM practices but it is different from the

simultaneous effect of mutual benefits perspective of strategic HRM and the critical HRM

perspective (see Mariappanadar, 2014a). The simultaneous effects of the mutual benefits

5
perspective (e.g., Van de Voorde et al., 2012) and the critical HRM perspective (e.g., Godard,

2001) treat organizational benefits (improved organizational financial performance) and

benefits/negative effects on employees as ‘separate’ domains. Furthermore, the simultaneous

effects of these two perspectives focus only on the effects of the domain of employee

benefits/negative effects on organizational performance and not the simultaneous effects of

improved organizational benefits and reduced negative effects of work on employees.

However, the simultaneous effects of the synthesis effects of sustainable HRM is based on

the synthesis paradox where organizations can maximize their profits using HRM practices.

However, organizations also have corporate social responsibility to simultaneously reduce the

harm of work imposed on employees and the ecological system because these three polarities

(outcomes) are not mutually exclusive but are rather, mutually reinforcing. Hence, an attempt

is made in this article to theoretically propose characteristics of sustainable HRM practices

which extend strategic HRM characteristics to achieve corporate sustainability outcomes.

CHARACTERISTICS OF SUSTAINABLE HRM PRACTICES

HRM practices are about the specific methods and procedures that the organization adopts

to implement the organization’s values and policies to achieve business goals (Posthuma,

Campion, Masimova and Campion, 2013). Furthermore, it was also revealed in the literature

that it is important to develop appropriate characteristics of HRM practices to operationalize

business strategies to achieve competitive advantage (Madden et al., 2012). The

characteristics of HRM practices are about the underlying organizational motives perceived

by employees who shape their behaviour and attitudes at work towards achieving

organizational goals (Nishii, Lepak & Schneider, 2008). Hence, the characteristics of

sustainable HRM practices are defined as employees’ perceived organizational sustainability

characteristics for the bundle of HRM practices needed to facilitate employees’ behavior and

attitudes to achieve improved integrated corporate sustainability outcomes.

6
 Arthur (1994) suggested that different approaches of HRM (i.e. control- and commitment-

based strategic HRM) distinctively shape employee behaviors and attitudes at work. Hence,

in developing the characteristics for sustainable HRM practices, an evolutionary process of

theory building is used (Weick, 1989). In the evolutionary process of theory building certain

alternative characteristics, such as pro- financial, human/social and environmental

characteristics, are logically chosen to enable organizations to achieve corporate

sustainability outcomes compared to that of the existing traditional control- commitment-

based (strategic) HRM practices. Table-1 is used in this section to indicate the evolutionary

process of characteristics of HRM practices. Table 1 shows characteristics of individual

HRM practices that are bundled together based on organizational expectations of employee

sustainability behaviors and attitudes at work for accomplishing individual integrated

outcomes of corporate sustainability. Column 1 and 2 of Table-1 includes characteristics of

the control- and commitment-based HRM practices respectively. Column 3 is used to propose

a new set of characteristics for sustainable HRM practices. The differences in the captured

characteristics of HRM practices in Table 1 are used to highlight that the ‘strategic’ focus of

sustainable HRM which extends beyond the pro-organizational focus of commitment-based

HRM practices.

“Insert Table 1 about here”

The proposed structure is used in the following sections to explain the sustainability

characteristics of HRM practices that are relevant for accomplishing corporate sustainability

outcomes of improved organizational financial performance, reduced negative side effects of

work, and reduced organizational ecological footprint. First, the reasons for selecting

individual HRM practices to be included in a bundle to accomplish corporate sustainability

outcomes are explained. Second, in explaining the sustainability characteristics for the chosen

HRM practices, initially the current control- and commitment- based characteristics of those

7
chosen HRM practices in a bundle are described. Subsequently, sustainability characteristics

are proposed for the chosen individual HRM practices to extend the characteristics of control-

and commitment-based HRM practices so as to facilitate certain sustainability behaviours and

attitudes among employees to achieve corporate sustainability outcomes. Finally, the effect

of an internally consistent bundle of HRM practices for the synthesis effect of sustainable

HRM to achieve integrated corporate sustainability outcomes is explored.

HRM Practices for Organizational Financial Performance

Van De Voorde et al. (2012) in their review provided evidence that HRM practices

have contributed to the mutual benefits for organizations by improved organizational

performance through enhanced employee motivation and participation. Furthermore, HRM

practices for HPWPs are deemed to increase employees’ knowledge, skills and abilities

(KSA), and also empower employees in decision making for enhancing organizational

benefits (Huselid, 1995). Hence, there is evidence in the literature to suggest that employee

competencies, motivation and participation have positive impacts on organizational

performance. It is useful now to identify from the literature those HRM practices that

facilitate employee behaviours such as employee competencies (KSA), motivation and

participation to enhance organizational financial performance.

Employee recruitment, selection and training are found to be related to enhancing

employee competencies (KSA) and achieving organizational goals (Gavino, Wayne and

Erdogan, 2012). It is also revealed that HRM practices regarding employee compensation and

rewards contribute to employee motivation (e.g., Appelbaum et al., 2000). Job or work

structure as an HRM practice promotes employee empowerment in organizational decision-

making (Delaney & Huselid; 1996). Hence, employee recruitment and selection, employee

training, compensation and rewards, and work structure for decision making are the relevant

8
individual HRM practices chosen to be included in the bundle of sustainable HRM practices

(Table 1) to propose characteristics for sustainable HRM practices to improve organizational

financial performance.

Strategic HRM theorists believe that internally consistent bundles of HRM practices

based on configuration theory will enhance organizational performance through employee

work behaviours (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004). Furthermore, Boxall (1998) indicted that

characteristics of individual HRM practices in a bundle of practices must align with HRM

strategies to achieve business strategies. A recent meta-analysis revealed that the bundles of

HRM practices have a significantly stronger relationship with organizational performance

compared to individual practices (Tzabbar, Tzafrir & Baruch, 2017). The characteristics of

each of those chosen HRM practices in the bundle are discussed next based on recent

literature.

Characteristics of Sustainable Employee Selection and Training for Employee Competencies

The main characteristic of control-based employee selection practices for employee

competencies is specific to job skills, in particular technical skills, for organizational

performance (Table-1). Furthermore, the defining characteristic of employee training in the

control based HRM system is on-the-job training and it is mostly reactive in approach (i.e.

used to solve a specific problem after it has happened) (Mossholder, Richardson & Settoon,

2011). Utilitarian instrumentalism and developmental humanism are the characteristics of

employee selection and training practices in the commitment-based strategic HRM practices

for employee competencies of knowledge, skills and abilities (KSA) to improve

organizational financial performance. That is, the utilitarian instrumentalism characteristics

of employee selection practice (Mariappanadar, 2003; Järlström et al., 2016) emphasize the

quantitative and calculative alignment between employee competencies (KSA) and the

9
business strategy for selecting employees to improve organizational financial performances.

Furthermore, developmental humanism (Storey, 1995) stresses the significance of the

employee development of competencies (KSA) to yield better organizational financial

performances. These characteristics of employee selection and training practices for

employee competencies (KSA) are reported to achieve mutual benefits for organizations as

well as for employees (e.g., Van De Voorde et al., 2012).

To extend the current HRM characteristics by utilizing sustainability characteristics, it is

proposed that employee selection and training practices for employee competencies (KSA)

which focus on organizational financial performance must be enriched with a high level of

social consciousness. Social consciousness (Pandey & Gupta, 2008) as an organizational

value aims to facilitate social wealth through HRM practices. The social ethics literature

indicated that the generation of social wealth of organizations is largely dependent upon

HRM policies and practices that are based on corporate social responsibility. Social wealth is

about the partnership an organization establishes with different stakeholders and defines

success in terms of the satisfaction of those different stakeholders. Hence, the social

consciousness characteristics of sustainable employee selection and training practices will

assist organizations to identify and develop employees with the competency of compassion

towards key stakeholders. Compassion as an employee competency highlights that an

employee/manager as ‘an agent’ of the organization sees the world as a possibility entrusted

into his/her hands, as we all are entrusted with the responsibility of caring for stakeholders

(i.e., employees and environment).

The employee competency of compassion is considered effective in forming relationships

with social entities to benefit organizations as well as to consider the satisfaction of

stakeholders in organizational decision making. Furthermore, there is evidence to suggest

that employees with compassion in management decision making achieve economic gains

10
even in a hypercompetitive market (see Kulshrestha, 2007). Hence, employee recruitment and

selection practices with social consciousness characteristics will be able to identify

prospective employees having this compassion for stakeholders. Subsequently, new

employees must be trained to use compassion in management decision-making to achieve

mutual interests of the market requirements for organizations as well as the social needs of

the stakeholders. Hence, the social consciousness characteristics of sustainable employee

selection practice should be able to select employees with employee competencies of KSA

for stakeholder compassion. Knowledge, skills and abilities (KSA) for stakeholder

compassion are suggested as additional behaviours to the employee’s competencies profile

aligned to the existing organizational financial performance focus. In summary, organizations

with corporate sustainability business strategy must develop and implement employee

selection and training practices with the characteristics of utilitarian instrumentalism,

developmental humanism and stakeholder compassion to facilitate employee competencies of

KSA to enhance organizational financial performance.

Characteristics of Sustainable Employee Compensation and Rewards for Employee

Motivation

The characteristic of control-based HRM practice on employee motivation is about

maximizing individual employee performance through hierarchical control (Table 1). This

characteristic is highlighted in the control HRM system because of the hedonistic character of

human behaviour which implies that employees will avoid work if they can and that an

authoritarian management style is required to maximize employee performance (Heinsman et

al., 2008). Hence, the characteristic of compensation and rewards practices for employee

motivation in the control HRM system is based on extrinsic motivation. Extrinsic motivation

of HRM practices is about the distribution of employee compensation and rewards dependent

on the achievement of measurable performance output criteria.

11
 The commitment-based strategic HRM practices use employee-centered intrinsic and

extrinsic motivators as characteristics to shape employee motivation (Arthur, 1994).

Furthermore, organizations entice employees with intrinsic and extrinsic motivators to

contribute more effort for high performance by using a bundle of HRM practices that

facilitate rewards and recognitions (Rynes, Gerhart & Minette 2004). It is proposed that the

characteristics for sustainable employee compensation and rewards practices must combine

facilitating employee-centered motivators with stakeholder altruism. Altruistic motivation

(Dovidio et al., 1990) focuses on increasing the welfare of employees along with stakeholders

(i.e. spouse/partner, children, caring for parents, disability, supply chain, and environment).

Furthermore, the source of altruistic motivation is not based on an employee’s ego or the

tasks that he/she is involved in but rather the motivation is drawn from acting to improve the

stakeholders’ welfare (employee well-being and ecological health of the planet). Hence, to

implement corporate sustainability, intrinsic, extrinsic and stakeholder altruism are the

proposed characteristics of sustainable employee compensation and rewards practices to

facilitate employee motivation to enhance organizational financial performance with social

consciousness.

Characteristics of Sustainable Work Structure for Empowered Decision-making

Job or work structure facilitates employee empowerment in decision-making which

increases organizational performance (Delaney & Huselid, 1996). The term employee

empowerment in this article is taken from an organizational structure perspective which

emphasizes HRM practices that facilitate moving decision-making authority down the

organizational hierarchy and providing employees the opportunity and ability to influence

organizational outcomes (Spreitzer, 1995). Employee empowerment in an organizational

context is based on the concept of ‘power experienced’. There are three main dimensions of

power experienced that facilitate employee empowerment (Menon, 2001): power as

12
perceived control; power as perceived competence; and power as being energized towards

achieving valued organizational goals.

In the control-based HRM system there is very limited scope for employee participation in

decision making due to its high work standardization (Chiva, 2014). However, HPWPs (a

type of commitment-based strategic HRM) are intended to increase employee empowerment

for employee participation in organizational citizenship based decision making with the

purpose of improving organizational performance and productivity (Shih et al., 2013).

The characteristics of sustainability empowered decision making of work structure are

guided by the works on empowerment of decision-making by Van Lange (1993) and

Fernández et al (2003). They have suggested that empowered decision-making should include

alignment (cooperation) or maximization of outcomes for stakeholders, and equality (i.e.

minimization of absolute differences between organizational, employees and environmental

outcomes of stakeholders). Hence, the sustainability empowered decision making

characteristics of work structure are defined as the power experienced by employee

involvement in facilitating employee actions to benefit the organization, its employees and to

preserve the health of ecosystem based on pro- financial, human/social and environmental

characteristics. It is proposed that sustainability empowered decision making includes pro-

financial, human/social and environmental characteristics to benefit all key stakeholders.

For example, a garment factory fire tragedy (2012) in Bangladesh killed more than 100

employees where garments were being produced for a large chain of departmental stores in

the US and Australia. Subsequently, due to consumer boycotts to improve working conditions

of supply chain employees, most of the departmental stores accepted an increase in the

purchase price of garments sourced from those factories in Bangladesh to improve the

working conditions for their employees. It is important in this example that employees

13
managing the supply chain contract for the major departmental stores should have been

empowered in the first place to decide about improving the working conditions of the supply

chain employees based on pro-social characteristics. However, employee managing supply

chain contracts focused on improving supply chain efficiency to increase profitability which

was not adequate for sustainability outcomes. It is important that these employees must have

been empowered to make decisions in improving the working conditions before the fire

accident happened. This would have saved the negative social reputation and the significant

drop in share market price for those companies and also the lives of supply chain employees.

Hence, organizational work structure with empowered pro- financial, human/social and

environmental decision making characteristics will simultaneously benefit an organization, its

employees and to preserve the ecosystem (i.e., corporate sustainability outcomes).

HRM Practices for Reduced Negative Side-effects of Work on Employees

Godard (2001), and Ramsay et al., (2000) have provided evidence that strategic HRM

practices are used to improve organizational performance while imposing the simultaneously

negative side effects of work on employees’ well-being. For example, in the last two decades

work intensification as HPWPs has benefited organizations by increased productivity and

profitability, but recent studies have indicated a diminished quality of the working life of

employees (e.g., Stanton et al., 2014) and productivity has reached a point of diminishing

return from longer working hours (Brown, 2012). However, work intensification is the “the

new work” paradigm of the 21st century in which employees’ perceive that work is

challenging, rewarding and provide a strong occupational identity for improved happiness.

Hence, work intensification as a practice is here to stay and it will continue to have negative

impact on employees and their families. Work intensification is chosen as a practice for

proposing sustainability characteristics to reduce the negative side effects of work on

employees. Furthermore, employee assistance practice is also chosen to highlight the type of

14
organizational support with sustainability characteristics to help employees to manage the

negative effects of work.

Sustainability Characteristics for Work Intensification

The focus of the control based HRM system is on developing systematic formal

procedures and improving working conditions for employee welfare (Andrewartha 1998) (see

Table 1). In the commitment based HRM literature, Godard (2001), and Ramsay et al., (2000)

have provided evidence that work intensification used to improve organizational performance

imposes simultaneous negative side effects of work on employees’ well-being. However,

organizations have made limited attempts to reduce the simultaneous negative side effects of

work on employees.

In the control based HRM system it is believed that work activities are not considered to

infringe on the family (Walton, 1999) because in this type of system the boundary of work is

limited to work location. Furthermore, in the commitment based HRM system the

characteristics of work intensification in impacting work-family balance is explained using

work-family conflict and work-family facilitation. Next the sustainability characteristics of

work intensification on employee health and work-family balance are explained.

It might be ideal but not realistic to advocate for organizations to avoid imposing negative

side effects of work on employees as indicated in the commitment based HRM literature.

This is because modern organizations operate with a system of values and beliefs that

privilege profitability which will eventually impose some forms of unavoidable externality or

unintended side effects of work on employees (Starkey & Crane, 2003. Sustainable HRM

evolved to identify and reduce the unsustainable impacts of work on employee well-being

while simultaneously improving organizational financial performance. Hence, low levels of

health harm of work and low levels of social harm of work are proposed as characteristics of

15
work intensification practices from the sustainable HRM literature which can be used as work

related leading indicators to prevent or delay the onset of occupational illnesses and work-

family issues respectively.

The health harm of work is about an employee’s perception of the restrictions imposed by

work practices on achieving positive health (Mariappanadar, 2016). The social harm of work

is the perceived severity of restrictions imposed by work practices on the family domain of

employees (Mariappanadar, 2014a). These obscured or reduced well-being outcomes caused

by the health and the social harm of work imposed by work practices are negative side effects

of work on employees because these lead to ‘welfare loss’ for employees (Mariappanadar,

2013; Mishra et al., 2014). That is, the negative externality or the social costs of welfare loss

for employees due to the harm of work practices cannot be avoided by organizations while

attempting to maximize profits in a free market. The health and the social harm of work

practices not only produce a welfare loss for employees due to the restrictions imposed by

work practices for positive health but also for reduced social well-being outcomes (e.g.,

Akerstedt et al., 2002). Furthermore, the health and social harms of work practices also have

negative impacts on organizational productivity/performance. Studies have found that the

negative impacts of work lead to work related illnesses (e.g., sleep disturbances, insomnia)

which subsequently have work related health consequences such as lost productivity due to

absenteeism (Godet-Cayre et al., 2006) and presenteeism (Dewa et al., 2004).

The WHO (1948) defined health as a state of complete physical, mental, and social well-

being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity. This definition of health focuses on

prevention or leading indicators of health and well-being along with illnesses. An attempt is

made in this article to use the health and the social harm of work as leading indicators for

work related illnesses and social well-being respectively in alignment with the WHO

definition of health. For example, there is evidence that socially and physically reinvigorating

16
life style activities will improve positive health and social well-being outcomes for individual

employees (Seeman, 1989). Hence, the health harm of work practices was developed with

this aspect of positive health and it is considered as leading indicators for occupational health

and well-being (Mariappanadar, 2016). Similarly, the social harm of work is used as leading

indicators for the social well-being for employees.

Leading indicators can provide effective early warnings, by enabling risks or risk increases

to be detected and mitigated, before negative health and social well-being consequences

occur (Sinelnikov et al., 2015). Hence, measuring the health and the social harm of work as

part of sustainability characteristics of occupational health and well-being practices will

facilitate organizations to identify and monitor leading indicators for the negative side effects

of work imposed on employees. Once the health harm and the social harm of work are

identified then it is useful for organisations to reduce the health and the social harm of work

imposed on employees to low levels.

Sustainable HRM highlights that organizations have an ethics of care responsibility

towards stakeholders (Van Marrewijk, 2003) to identify and manage the health and the social

harm of work while organizations attempt to improve financial performance. Hence, a low

level of health and social harm of work practices are proposed as normative quality criteria

for sustainability characteristics work intensification practices. The normative qualities of

low levels of health and social harm of work are explored as the sustainability characteristics

of HRM practices because, as discussed earlier, these simultaneous side effects are

unavoidable when organizations’ focus on profitability. However, these simultaneous side

effects of work must be controlled and managed as part of implementing a corporate

sustainability business strategy. Organisations have care responsibilities to maintain the

impacts of the health and the social harm of work on employee at low levels and hence it is

proposed as sustainability characteristics for work intensification practices.

17
Sustainability Characteristics for Employee Assistance

In the control based HRM system employees had limited opportunities to voice their

occupational health issue because of minimal or no job security (Walton, 1999). However, in

the commitment based HRM system employee assistance program (EAP) is used as a

management tool to improve workplace performance and productivity and also to respond to

critical incidents for employees such as stress management and personal problems

experienced by the employees or members of their families (Arthur, 2000; Kirk & Brown,

2003). Furthermore, EAP which primarily focuses on interventions to help individual

employees to cope with the harm of work. For example, an evaluation study of EAP

performance (Berridge et al., 1997) found that seventy-three percent of the employees

reported that the counselling provided by EAP enabled them to cope with the problem of

stress caused by work practices but that the problem (i.e. work practices) at the organizational

level remained unresolved or unchanged. Hence, the sustainable corporate assistance program

highlights the importance of achieving “workplace wellness along with worker wellness”

based on interventions that take into consideration the organization-individual interface

(Mariappanadar, 2019).

Workplace wellness characteristics of occupational health and social well-being practices

highlight the organization-individual interface which will enhance organizational

capabilities to minimize the health and the social harm of work imposed on employees.

Furthermore, workplace wellness characteristics will help organizations to recast their

organizational identity based on the evidence of duty of care for employees as an internal

stakeholder (Jurkiewicz & Giacalone, 2004). For example, the leading indicators measure of

the health and the social harm of work can reveal the organizational level risk factors for

occupational health and well-being practices. Subsequently, workplace wellness can facilitate

organizational change interventions using prosocial job design and job demand to minimize

18
the harm of work on employees to manage the organizational level risks imposed on

employees. Therefore, prosocial based job design is proposed to promote workplace wellness

using the relational job design framework suggested by Grant (2007).

Grant (2007) suggested that the current tasks based job design allows managers to focus

on the organization’s interest by overlooking the negative side effects on employees. For

example, in the sustainable HRM literature, there is evidence that work intensification caused

by job design (time demand and workload) is linked to the health harm of work

(Mariappanadar, 2016) and the social harm of work (Mariappanadar & Aust, 2018). The

relational job design framework suggested by Grant explains the organizational system level

architecture for managers to make a prosocial difference in having potential positive impacts

on subordinates when employees in their supervision were identified with organizational

level risks such as the health and the social harm of work practices. The prosocial difference

behaviour of managers highlights positive organizational support for employees to produce

and maintain positive health and social well-being. Thus, the framework indicates that job

architecture should provide managers with opportunities and relational contacts with

subordinates to consider re-designing their current jobs with prosocial characteristics (Hahn,

2015). The prosocial characteristics of job design will promote and maintain employee health

and social well-being at low levels to enhance workplace wellness.

In summary, work intensification cannot be avoided in the hyper competitive environment.

However, the sustainability characteristics of work intensification is to measure and monitor

the health and the social harm of work so that it can be contained to low levels of harm.

Hence, organizations can use the health and the social harm of work as work related

indicators to prevent or delay the onset of occupational health and work-family balance issues

due to work intensification. Further, corporate sustainability business strategy must

implement workplace wellness characteristics of occupational health and social well-being

19
practices to facilitate managers to use a prosocial approach in the job re-design of their

subordinates to reduce the health and the social harm of work on employees to only low

levels.

HRM Practices for Reducing Ecology Footprint of Business by EMS

The environment management system (EMS) literature indicates that economic activities

by organizations are the main source for environmental degradation from the

anthropocentrism perspective, and hence organizations have ethical and moral responsibilities

to address environmental issues (see Renwick et al., 2013). Anthropocentrism is “the belief

that there is a clear and morally relevant dividing line between humankind and the rest of the

nature, that humankind is the only principal source of value or meaning in the world”

(Eckersley, 1992; p. 51). However, the ecocentric perspective stresses that organizations have

moral obligations to maintain, preserve and/or restore the health of the ecosystem (i.e., a

circular exchange of materials between living and non-living parts of a natural unit) in

environmental management. In this section, initially HRM practices that are relevant for EMS

are identified from the green HRM literature. Subsequently, ecocentric characteristics are

proposed for those identified HRM practices to enhance employees’ environmental behaviour

at work to reduce organizational ecology footprint as part of the environmental outcome of

corporate sustainability.

Although, using an advanced EMS for reducing their ecological footprint by organizations

has become an industry norm at present, the review by Fernández and colleagues (2003) has

underlined the importance of using employee involvement and participation in EMS. Hence,

an attempt is made to identify relevant HRM practices that have the potential to facilitate

involvement and participation of employees in EMS. A recent review of HRM practices

involvement in EMS (Renwick et al., 2016) revealed the role of varied HRM functions in

20
environmental sustainability. Furthermore, Jabbour, Santos and Nagano (2010) revealed in

their empirical research that employee selection and training are the relevant HRM practices

that facilitate employee involvement and participation in EMS. Subramanian et al., (2016)

revealed in their study that employee selection and training practices of organizations are

related to organizations meeting environmental performance targets. Thus, to achieve an

environmental outcome of corporate strategy, an organization must develop and implement

an internally consistent bundle of employee selection and training practices with

sustainability characteristics to reduce organizational ecology footprint.

Characteristics of Selection and Training for Ecocentric EMS

Green competencies (Subramanian et al., 2016) infer employee ecological knowledge,

skills and other socioeconomic behaviour which are used to act rightly and responsibly

towards the overall well-being of an immediate environment. Green competencies include

natural (i.e., personality dimensions) and acquired (i.e., knowledge and skills) competencies.

The control based HRM practices on employee selection and training for reducing an

organizational ecological footprint (Table 1) focused on employee competencies that are not

related to green competencies. However, employee competencies, such as knowledge, skills

and abilities on EMS that are used by organizations in selection and in training of employees

need to comply with environmental laws and regulations (Daily & Huang, 2001). These

selection and training practices for EMS reflect the anthropocentric perspective of humankind

which believes it has the moral right to dominate the environment (Eckersley, 1992).

In the commitment based HRM literature, Subramanian and his colleagues (2016) have

suggested that organizations aspiring to do well in the environmental outcome of corporate

sustainability should give more importance to the acquired green competencies through

previous experiences instead of the natural characteristics (i.e., personality etc.,).

21
Furthermore, they also indicated that employee training on green knowledge will benefit

organizations to achieve targets for the environmental outcome of corporate sustainability

(see Table 1). An attempt is made in this article to extend green competencies for employee

selection and training with characteristics from the ecocentric perspective to facilitate

employee behaviours to reduce organizational ecological footprint.

In the ecocentric approach, nature is the core and all biophysical systems, including

humans, which are integrated parts of nature (Bansal & Roth, 2000). Hence, the ecocentric

perspective of HRM highlights that organizations have moral obligations to engage

employees to maintain, preserve and/or restore the health of an ecosystem (i.e., a circular

exchange of materials between living and non-living parts of a natural unit) in environmental

management. Ecocentric characteristics for green competencies are considered holistic

because the competencies include individual employee level behaviour (Purser et al.,1995)

and also the need to understand multi-level organizational (Satrik & Rands, 1995)

interactional impacts on EMS to reduce organizational ecological footprint. The individual

level ecocentric green competencies include knowledge and skills to care and concerns for

environment, utilization and conservation of environmental resources, and environmental

altruism. Furthermore, ecocentric organizational level green competencies include the

knowledge and skills of employees to understand multi-level organizational interactions with

key external stakeholders, political-economic entities and socio-cultural entities for EMS to

reduce an organization’s ecological footprint.

Table 1 shows that the ecocentric characteristics of sustainable employee selection and

training will facilitate organizations to conduct employment testing and train employees for

ecocentric green competencies. The ecocentric green competencies include environmental

altruism, conservation, maintaining and preserving the health of the ecosystem which are

relevant for implementing ecocentric EMS. For example, in the manufacturing industry it is

22
useful to conduct employment testing and training on emission reduction and waste

management in preserving the health of the ecosystem (Fernández et al., 2003). Furthermore,

it is also useful for organizations in manufacturing to select and train employees to

understand the complex multi-level organizational interactions such as key stakeholders’

expectations (i.e., supply chain emission reduction, and the weak environmental regulations

in developing economies etc.,) that facilitate and/or act as barriers for employee green

behaviour. Hence, organizations using EMS to achieve environmental outcomes of corporate

sustainability should select and train employees with the ecocentric green individual level

competencies characteristics of environmental altruism, conservation, and maintaining and

preserving the health of the ecosystem which will facilitate employee green behaviours to

reduce organizational ecological footprint.

Sustainable HRM System for Integrated Outcomes of Corporate Sustainability

In the earlier sections to achieve the first aim of this article, the characteristics of

individual HRM practices for internally consistent bundles of practices for sustainable HRM

system were discussed. In this section an attempt is made to achieve the second aim of the

article. That is, to synthesize bundles of HRM practices with sustainability characteristics of

the sustainable HRM system to achieve integrated outcomes of corporate sustainability. In

the commitment based HRM literature it is indicated that the HRM systems vary depending

on internal and external contexts which includes business strategy (Jackson et al., 2014). The

context dependency of HRM system also highlights varied components or sub-systems that

are relevant for achieving different business strategies. Hence, the synthesis characteristics of

sustainable HRM system is proposed to achieve integrated outcomes of corporate

sustainability business strategy using the hierarchical architecture (Posthuma et al., 2013).

The sustainable HRM system architecture highlights the synthesis effects of bundles of

internally consistent HRM practices of the sustainable HRM sub-systems (finance,

23
employee/social and ecological) for achieving integrated outcomes corporate sustainability

business strategy.

Chuang, Jackson and Jiang (2016) suggested that well-designed HRM systems will

facilitate individual attitudes and behaviours through bundles of HRM practices to achieve

organizational outcomes. The choice of an HRM system to align with business strategy is

contingent upon the contextual factors which include the strategic value of human capital

(employee knowledge, skills and experience) associated with employee behaviour (Lepak &

Snell, 2002). Hence, it is relevant to identify HRM practices that can be used to develop

characteristics of the sustainable HRM system. Young growing organizations in an

organization’s life cycle or organizations attempting to introduce changes to the existing

system normally focus on employee selection and training practices to facilitate employee

behaviours that align to business strategy. However, matured organizations are concerned

with implementing internal labour markets for the choice of HRM systems (Jackson &

Schuler, 1995). As sustainable HRM is an emerging field, most organizations attempting to

incorporate sustainable HRM system will be making changes to their the existing HRM

system. Hence, employee selection and training are the relevant practices to identify and train

employees with competencies (employee knowledge, skills and experience) to implement the

synthesis effects characteristics of the sustainable HRM system to achieve integrated

outcomes of corporate sustainability.

Characteristics of Sustainable HRM System

The synthesis effects characteristics of the sustainable HRM system deal with the tension

in business-stakeholder relationships so that both a business and its key stakeholders’

expectations are simultaneously managed while implementing corporate sustainability

business strategies. The objective of the synthesis effects of sustainable HRM system is to

24
use HR to achieve improved organizational financial performance while simultaneously

reduce the negative side effects of work on employees and the reduced organizational

ecological footprint. The synthesis effects characteristics of the sustainable HRM system

highlight that these competing polarities of financial, employee/family and ecological

outcomes for corporate sustainability are not mutually exclusive but are rather, mutually

reinforcing. However, many practitioners may believe that by implementing a sustainable

HRM system based on the synthesis effects, an organization will increase the managing costs

of externalities imposed by an organization on employees (i.e., unintended negative side

effects) and reduce the ecological footprint. Therefore, it will make organizations less

financially competitive in the market.

A meta-analysis by Margolis and colleagues (2009) found that the discretionary corporate

social performances of managing the costs of the negative side effects imposed on employees

by organizational practices improved stakeholders’ positive reputation and also increased

financial performance. Furthermore, Mariappanadar and Kramar (2014) have reported

evidence based on CRANET data for the synthesis effect of HPWPs. HPWP used by

organizations to enhance positive organizational performance also reduced the harm of work

on employees when the relationship was facilitated by employee benefits and trade union

influence on organizations. That is, these internally consistent bundles of practices of

sustainable HRM system can improve organizational performance, and simultaneously

reduce the harm of work imposed on employees/families to reveal the synthesis or

congruence effect of the sustainable HRM system. Furthermore, a review of environmental

literature (Salzmann et al., 2005) revealed a sound economic rationale for the business case

for managing environmental issues at an organization’s level. It is evident that the

contradictory corporate sustainability outcomes can be blended together using the synthesis

25
effects characteristics of the sustainable HRM system to achieve integrated outcomes of

corporate sustainability.

Hauff et al., (2014) indicated that the characteristics of HRM systems for the control

and the commitment based systems are different based on the human capital (employee

knowledge, skills and experience) associated with employees. In Table 1 shows that the

human capital characteristics associated with employees of the control based HRM system

are low in strategic value and uniqueness for organizations. However, if human capital is

unique and very valuable for an organization then the organization should choose the

characteristics of a commitment oriented or strategic HRM system. Hence, it is proposed that

organizations must attempt to extend the current strategic HRM system with the synthesis

effects characteristics of the sustainable HRM system to achieve corporate sustainability. For

example, during employee selection there is merit in assessing employees for competencies

that include the ability to synthesis, integrate, and abstract at a high level. A central aspect of

this HRM system competency is to seek employee’s ability in making decision choices for

achieving the varied corporate sustainability outcomes not as an “either/or” choice of those

outcomes. Hence, employee sustainability competencies, training and development should be

used to gain knowledge and capabilities to manage sustainable HRM system in synthesizing

the seemingly contradictory financial, employee/family and ecological outcomes of corporate

sustainability.

Conclusion

Most managers in the 21st century have accepted corporate sustainability business strategy

as a precondition for doing business (Dyllick & Hockerts, 2002). HRM practices from the

resource based perspective highlight the importance of using appropriate sustainability

characteristics to engage employees to achieve corporate sustainability business strategy. The

26
article sought to theoretically conceptualize the characteristics of HRM practices identified

for internally consistent bundles of practices of the sustainable HRM system. The sustainable

HRM system is developed to achieve integrated outcomes of corporate sustainability. The

sustainable HRM system includes three bundles of HRM practices. These bundles include

practices to reduce negative side effects of work at the employee level. Furthermore, the other

two bundles of practices focus on improved organizational financial performance and

environmental management performances.

Organizations aiming to achieve corporate sustainability business strategy must develop

and implement sustainability characteristics to each of the individual HRM practices that are

theoretically identified in the bundles of sustainable HRM system. The HRM practices

identified in the three bundles of practices for the sustainable HRM system include employee

selection, training, compensation, reward and work structure, occupational health and social

well-being practices. The pro- financial, social/human and environmental sustainability

characteristics are proposed for these identified HRM practices in the bundles of sustainable

HRM system (see Table-1). Finally, to enable organizations with corporate sustainability

business strategy to overcome the challenges in achieving integrated outcomes of corporate

sustainability (Epstein, 2018), the synthesis effects characteristics are proposed for the

sustainable HRM system. That is, organizations focusing on corporate sustainability business

strategy must develop and implement a sustainable HRM system with the characteristics of

synthesis effects by selecting and training employees with competencies to dynamically

reconcile and/or balance the contradictions of simultaneously achieving the three

contradictory but complementary outcomes.

Research and Practical Implications

27
 The proposed propositions in the article provide avenues and directions for future

research. Furthermore, future research should explore the possibility of empirically

establishing a measure based on the proposed characteristics for sustainable HRM. One

possible approach for a validity study is to conduct a qualitative study of the characteristics of

HR policies and practices among the top 200 corporations which are listed in the Morgan and

Stanley Capital International (MSCI) - Socially Responsible Investors (SRI) index which

tracks environmental, social/human and economic (ESG) performance of corporations (Liao

et al., 2018). As empirical research in sustainable HRM is in the early stages, it is useful to

conduct qualitative research based on contents analysis of CSR reports, case analysis and/or

interviews of managers/employees from corporations listed in the MSCI – SRI index to

identify the characteristics of HRM policies and practices that are relevant to sustainable

HRM system. A measure for the characteristics of sustainable HRM practices will add value

to the current sustainable HRM literature by facilitating subsequent future research on testing

the relationship between sustainable HRM practices on environmental management (see

Jabbour et al., 2010), reduced health harm of work (Mariappanadar, 2016), employee mental

well-being (Bech et al., 2003), family well-being (Lavee et al., 1987), better corporate

financial performance, employee turnover, and increase productivity (see Huselid, 1995).

Second, the hierarchical architecture of sustainable HRM system with bundles of

internally consistent practices is aligned to achieving integrated outcomes of corporate

sustainability based on the synthesis effect perspective of sustainable HRM. The

integrationist perspective (Kalmi & Kauhanen, 2008) explains that internally consistent

bundles of practices have mutually supportive properties and organizations gain by

integrating these practices to achieve simultaneously the three financial, human/social and

environmental outcomes.

28
 Third, it will be useful for future research to study the synthesis effects of the three

bundles of practices of sustainable HRM system. Capturing the varied impacts of the

characteristics of bundles of sustainable HRM practices on the triple-bottom outcomes of

corporate sustainability based on the synthesis effects perspective of sustainable HRM system

is considered complex. However, Edwards (1995) devised an organizational research

technique to fully capture the effects of multiple independent variables on the congruence or

synthesis effect between multiple dependent variables. Hence, future research can attempt to

test the synthesis effects of the characteristics of bundles of practices of sustainable HRM

system on integrated outcomes of corporate sustainability using Edwards’ research technique.

Fourth, different nations (like China, India, Japan, South Korea etc.,) in the contemporary

world, have evolved very different work attitudes and types of organization (Mariappanadar,

2005). In national cultures based on work values founded in Hinduism, Confucianism and

Islamic beliefs, there is evidence for work organizations providing for ‘social good’

(Micklethwaith & Wooldridge, 2003). The concept of ‘social good’ is much broader than the

concern for the rights of stakeholders in their dealings with representatives of an

organization. Hence, pro- organizational finance, environmental and social/human

responsibilities are the characteristics of sustainable HRM which are congruent with national

cultures of developing economies in the Asian region predominantly with Hinduism,

Confucianism and Islamic beliefs.

Universal and culturally divergent practices are the two important aspects of globalizing

HRM which were identified by Bae and Rowley’s (2001) framework on the transfer of HRM

practices by multi-national enterprises (MNEs) to host country subsidiaries. MNEs to transfer

and implement effectively sustainable HRM in their subsidiaries in the Asian region, it is

important for MNEs to analyze the congruence between some of the characteristics of

29
sustainable HRM and national culture of the host country. Hence, using Bae and Rowley’s

framework, future research should explore cross-cultural studies of MNE’s to find the

characteristics of practices that are universal and those characteristics which are divergent

among practices in the bundles of sustainable HRM system. Finally, future cross-cultural

research should also explore the characteristics that have to be simultaneously realized to

achieve integrated outcomes of corporate sustainability by MNE’s operating in multiple

geographical locations.

Finally, highlighting practical implications, the characteristics of practices in internally

consistent bundles of sustainable HRM system will guide management and HRM

professionals to the establishment of HRM policies and practices with sustainability

characteristics for implementing a corporate sustainability business strategy. The provided

comparison of characteristics of strategic and sustainable HRM practices provides insight to

management and HRM professionals to first defamiliarize the current dominant strategic

HRM practices, which is incompatible for implementing diverse outcomes of corporate

sustainability business strategy. Subsequently, strategic HRM practices can be renewed with

the pro- social and ecocentric environmental characteristics of sustainable HRM practices

that are compatible to effectively manage the tension and use the synthesis effects to achieve

the integrated outcomes of corporate sustainability.

30
References
Akerstedt, T., Knutsson, A., Westerholm, P., Theorell, T., Alfredsson, L., & Kecklund, G.

(2002). Sleep disturbances, work stress and work hours A cross-sectional study,

Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 53, 741– 748.

Andrewartha, G. (1998). The future role of human resource management. Australian Human

Resource Management, 2, 1-16.

Appelbaum, E., Bailey, T., Berg, P. and Kalleberg, A. (2000). Manufacturing Advantage:

Why High Performance Work Systems Pay Off. NY: Cornell University Press.

Arthur, A. (2000). Employee assistance programmes: The emperor's new clothes of stress

management? British Journal of Guidance & Counselling 28 (4), 549-559.

Arthur, J. B. (1994). Effects of human resource systems on manufacturing performance and

turnover. Academy of Management Journal 37 (3), 670-687.

Bacharach, S. B. (1989). Organizational theories: Some criteria for evaluation. Academy of

Management Review, 14: 496-515.

Bae, J., & Rowley, C. (2001). The impact of globalization on HRM: The case of South

Korea. Journal of World Business, 36(4), 402-428.

Bansal, P., & Roth, K. (2000). Why companies go green: A model of ecological

responsiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 717-736.

Bech, P., L. R. Olsen, M. Kjoller., and N. K. Rasmussen. 2003. "Measuring well‐being rather

than the absence of distress symptoms: a comparison of the SF‐36 Mental Health

subscale and the WHO‐Five well‐being scale." International Journal of Methods in

Psychiatric Research 12 (2), 85-91.

31
Berridge, J., Cooper, C., & Highley-Marchington, C. (1997). Employee assistance

programmes and workplace counselling. John Wiley & Sons.

Bowen, D. E., & Ostroff, C. (2004). Understanding HRM–firm performance linkages: The

role of the “strength” of the HRM system. Academy of Management Review 29 (2),

203-221.

Boxall, P. (1998). Achieving competitive advantage through human resource strategy:

Towards a theory of industry dynamics. Human Resource Management Review, 8(3),

265-288.

Brown, M. (2012). Responses to work intensification: does generation matter? The

International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23(17), 3578-3595.

Chiva, R. (2014). The common welfare human resource management system: A new

proposal based on high consciousness. Personnel Review 43 (6), 937-956.

Chuang, C. H., Jackson, S. E., & Jiang, Y. (2016). Can knowledge-intensive teamwork be

managed? Examining the roles of HRM systems, leadership, and tacit knowledge.

Journal of Management, 42(2), 524-554.

Daily, B. F., & Huang, S. C. (2001). Achieving sustainability through attention to human

resource factors in environmental management. International Journal of Operations &

Production Management, 21(12), 1539-1552.

Delaney, J. T., & Huselid, M. A. 1996. The impact of human resource management practices

on perceptions of organizational performance. Academy of Management Journal, 39:

949-969.

Dewa, C., Lesage, A., Goering, P., & Caveen, M. (2004). Nature and prevalence of mental

illness in the workplace. Healthcare Papers 5 (2), 12-25.

32
Docherty, P., Forslin, J., & Shani, A. B. (2002). Creating sustainable work systems:

emerging perspectives and practice. Psychology Press.

Dovidio, J. F., Allen, J. L., & Schroeder, D. A. (1990). Specificity of empathy-induced

helping: Evidence for altruistic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology 59 (2), 249-260.

Dyllick, T., & Hockerts, K. (2002). Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability.

Business strategy and the environment, 11(2), 130-141.

Eckersley, R. (1992). Environmentalism and Political Theory. Albany: State University of

New York Press.

Edwards, J. R. (1995). Alternatives to difference scores as dependent variables in the study of

congruence in organizational research. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision

Processes, 64(3), 307-324.

Ehnert, I. (2009). Sustainable human resource management: A conceptual and exploratory

analysis from a paradox perspective. London: Springer.

Ehnert, I., S. Parsa, I. Roper, M. Wagner, and M. Muller-Camen. (2015). Reporting on

sustainability and HRM: A comparative study of sustainability reporting practices by

the world's largest companies. The International Journal of Human Resource

Management 27 (1), 88-108.

Epstein, M. J. (2018). Making sustainability work: Best practices in managing and measuring

corporate social, environmental and economic impacts. Routledge.

Fernández, E., Junquera, B., & Ordiz, M. (2003). Organizational culture and human resources

in the environmental issue: a review of the literature. International Journal of Human

Resource Management, 14(4), 634-656.

33
Gavino, M. C., Wayne, S. J., & Erdogan, B. (2012). Discretionary and transactional human

resource practices and employee outcomes: The role of perceived organizational

support. Human Resource Management, 51(5), 665-686.

Godard, J. (2001). High performance and the transformation of work? The implications of

alternative work practices for the experience and outcomes of work. Industrial & Labor

Relations Review 54 (4), 776-805.

Godet-Cayre, V., Pelletier-Fleury, N., Le Vaillant, M., Dinet, J., Massuel, M., & Leger, D.

(2006). Insomnia and absenteeism at work. Who pays the cost? SLEEP-NEW YORK

THEN WESTCHESTER- 29 (2), 179-184.

Grant, A. M. (2007). Relational job design and the motivation to make a prosocial difference.

Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 393-417.

Grzywacz, J. G., & Butler, A. B. (2005). The impact of job characteristics on work-to-family

facilitation: testing a theory and distinguishing a construct. Journal of Occupational

Health Psychology, 10(2), 97-109.

Guest, D. (1997). Human resource management and performance: a review and research

agenda. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 8, 263-276.

Guest, D. E. (2017). Human resource management and employee well‐being: Towards a new

analytic framework. Human Resource Management Journal, 27(1), 22-38.

Hahn, T. (2015). Reciprocal stakeholder behavior: A motive-based approach to the

implementation of normative stakeholder demands. Business & Society, 54(1), 9-51.

34
Hauff, S., Alewell, D., & Hansen, N. K. (2014). HRM systems between control and

commitment: Occurrence, characteristics and effects on HRM outcomes and firm

performance. Human Resource Management Journal, 24(4), 424-441.

Heinsman, H., de Hoogh, A. H., Koopman, P. L., & van Muijen, J. J. (2008). Commitment,

control, and the use of competency management. Personnel Review, 37(6), 609-628.

Huselid, M. A. (1995). The impact of human resource management practices on turnover,

productivity, and corporate financial performance. Academy of Management Journal,

38 (3), 635-672.

Jabbour, C. J. C., Santos, F. C. A., & Nagano, M. S. (2010). Contributions of HRM

throughout the stages of environmental management: methodological triangulation

applied to companies in Brazil. The International Journal of Human Resource

Management, 21(7), 1049-1089.

Jackson, S. E., & Schuler, R. S. (1995). Understanding human resource management in the

context of organizations and their environments. Annual Review of Psychology, 46(1),

237-264.

Jackson, S. E., Renwick, D. W. S., Jabbour, C. J. C., and Muller-Camen, M. (2011). State-of-

the-art and future directions for green human resource management: Introduction to the

special issue. Zeitschrift für Personalforschung/German Journal of Research in Human

Resource Management, 99-116.

Jackson, S. E., Schuler, R. S., & Jiang, K. (2014). An aspirational framework for strategic

human resource management. The Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 1-56.

35
Järlström, M., Saru, E., & Vanhala, S. 2016. Sustainable Human Resource Management with

Salience of Stakeholders: A Top Management Perspective. Journal of Business Ethics,

1-22. DOI 10.1007/s10551-016-3310-8

Jurkiewicz, C. L., & Giacalone, R. A. (2004). A values framework for measuring the impact

of workplace spirituality on organizational performance. Journal of Business Ethics,

49(2), 129-142.

Kalmi, P., & Kauhanen, A. (2008). Workplace innovations and employee outcomes:

Evidence from Finland. Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society,

47(3), 430-459.

Kirk, A., and D. F. Brown. (2003). Employee assistance programs: A review of the

management of stress and wellbeing through workplace counselling and consulting.

Australian Psychologist 38 (2), 138-143.

Kramar, R. (2014). Beyond strategic human resource management: is sustainable human

resource management the next approach? The International Journal of Human

Resource Management 25 (8), 1069-1089.

Kulshrestha, P. (2007) Economics, Ethics and Business Ethics: A Critique of

Interrelationships, International Journal of Business Governance and Ethics 3(1), 33–

41.

Lavee, Y, H. I. McCubbin, and D. H. Olson. 1987. The effect of stressful life events and

transitions on family functioning and well-being. Journal of Marriage and the

Family, 857-873.

36
Lepak, D. P., & Snell, S. A. (2002). Examining the human resource architecture: The

relationships among human capital, employment, and human resource configurations.

Journal of Management, 28(4), 517-543.

Liao, L., Lin, T. P., & Zhang, Y. (2018). Corporate board and corporate social responsibility

assurance: Evidence from China. Journal of Business Ethics, 150(1), 211-225.

Madden, L. T., Duchon, D. Madden, T. M. & Plowman, D. A. (2012). Emergent

organizational capacity for compassion. Academy of Management Review, 37(4), 689-

708.

Margolis, J. D., Elfenbein, H. A., & Walsh, J. P. (2009). Does it pay to be good... and does it

matter? A meta-analysis of the relationship between corporate social and financial

performance. Working Paper, Harvard University.

Mariappanadar, S. & Aust, I. (2018). The Dark Side of Overwork: An Empirical Evidence of

Social Harm of Work from a Sustainable HRM perspective, International Studies of

Management & Organization. 47:4, 372-387.

Mariappanadar, S. & Kramar, R. (2014). Sustainable HRM: The Synthesis Effect of High

Performance Work Systems on Organisational Performance and Employee Harm.

Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration, 6 (3), 206-224.

Mariappanadar, S. (2003). Sustainable Human Resource Management: The Sustainable and

unsustainable dilemmas of downsizing”, International Journal of Social Economics,

30 (8), 906 – 923.

Mariappanadar, S. (2005). An emic approach to understand culturally indigenous and alien

human resource management practices in global companies. Research and Practice in

Human Resource Management, 13(2), 31-48.

37
Mariappanadar, S. (2012). The harm indicators of negative externality of efficiency focused

organizational practices, International Journal of Social Economics, 39 (3), 209 –

220.

Mariappanadar, S. (2013). A Conceptual Framework for Cost Measures of Harm of HRM

practices. Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration. 5 (2), 15-39.

Mariappanadar, S. (2014a). Stakeholder harm index: A framework to review work

intensification from the critical HRM perspective, Human Resource Management

Review, 24 (4), 313-329.

Mariappanadar, S. (2014b). Sustainable HRM: A counter to minimize the externality of

downsizing”. In Sustainability and Human Resource Management Ina Ehnert, Wesley

Harr and Klaus J. Zink (Eds.). Germany, Springer Publisher, 181 – 203.

Mariappanadar, S. (2016). Health harm of work from the sustainable HRM perspective: scale

development and validation. International Journal of Manpower, 37(6), 924-944.

Mariappanadar, S. (2019). Sustainable Human Resource Management: Strategies, Practices

and Challenges, Macmillan Publisher, London.

Menon, S. (2001). Employee empowerment: An integrative psychological approach. Applied

Psychology 50 (1), 153-180.

Micklethwaith, J. and Wooldridge, A. (2003). The Company: A Short History of a

Revolutionary Idea, Modern Library Chronicles. New York.

Miron-Spektor, E., Ingram, A., Keller, J., Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. (2018).

Microfoundations of organizational paradox: The problem is how we think about the

problem. Academy of Management Journal, 61: 26-45.

38
Mishra, R. K., Sarkar, S., & Kiranmai, J. (2014). Green HRM: innovative approach in Indian

public enterprises. World Review of Science, Technology and Sustainable

Development 11 (1), 26-42.

Mossholder, K. W., Richardson, H. A., & Settoon, R. P. (2011). Human resource systems and

helping in organizations: A relational perspective. Academy of Management Review,

36(1), 33-52.

Nishii, L., Lepak, D. P. & Schneider, B. (2008). Employee attributions of the “why” of HR

practices: Their effects on employee attitudes and behaviors, and customer

satisfaction. Personnel Psychology 61 (3), 503-545.

Pandey, A., & Gupta. R. K. (2008). A perspective of collective consciousness of business

organizations. Journal of Business Ethics 80 (4), 889-898.

Posthuma, R. A., Campion, M. C., Masimova, M., & Campion, M. A. (2013). A high

performance work practices taxonomy: Integrating the literature and directing future

research. Journal of Management, 39(5), 1184-1220.

Purser, R. E., Park, C., & Montuori, A. (1995). Limits to anthropocentrism: Toward an

ecocentric organization paradigm? Academy of Management Review, 20(4), 1053-1089.

Ramsay, H., Scholarios, D., & Harley, B. (2000). Employees and high performance work

systems: Testing inside the black box. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 38,

501-531.

Renwick, D. W., Redman, T., & Maguire, S. (2013). Green human resource management: A

review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 15(1), 1-

14.

39
Rynes, S. L., Gerhart, B., & Minette, K. A. (2004). The importance of pay in employee

motivation: Discrepancies between what people say and what they do. Human

Resource Management 43 (4), 381-394.

Salzmann, O., Ionescu-Somers, A., & Steger, U. (2005). The business case for corporate

sustainability: literature review and research options. European Management Journal,

23(1), 27-36.

Seeman, J. (1989). Toward a model of positive health. American Psychologist, Vol. 44, No.

8, pp. 1099-1109.

Shih, H., Chiang, Y. & Hsu, C. (2013). High performance work system and HCN

performance. Journal of Business Research 66 (4), 540-546.

Sinelnikov, S., Inouye, J., & Kerper, S. (2015). Using leading indicators to measure

occupational health and safety performance. Safety Science, 72, 240-248.

Stanton, P., Gough, R., Ballardie, R., Bartram, T., Bamber, G. J., & Sohal, A. (2014).

Implementing lean management/Six Sigma in hospitals: beyond empowerment or

work intensification?. The International Journal of Human Resource Management,

25(21), 2926-2940.

Starkey, K., & Crane, A. (2003). Toward green narrative: Management and the evolutionary

epic. Academy of Management Review, 28(2), 220-237.

Storey, J. (1995), Human Resource Management – A Critical Text, Routledge, London, pp.

33-36 and 167-180.

Subramanian, N., Abdulrahman, M. D., Wu, L., & Nath, P. (2016). Green competence

framework: evidence from China. The International Journal of Human Resource

Management, 27(2), 151-172.

40
Tzabbar, D., Tzafrir, S., & Baruch, Y. (2017). A bridge over troubled water: Replication,

integration and extension of the relationship between HRM practices and

organizational performance using moderating meta-analysis. Human Resource

Management Review, 27: 134-148.

UN Global Compact. (2014). Overview of the UN Global Compact.

http://nbis.org/nbisresources/sustainable_development_equity/un_global_compact.pdf.

Accessed on 22 September 2015.

Van De Voorde, K, J. Paauwe, and M. Van Veldhoven. (2012). Employee Well‐being and the

HRM–Organizational Performance Relationship: A Review of Quantitative Studies.

International Journal of Management Reviews 14 (4), 391-407.

Van Lange, P. (1999). The pursuit of joint outcomes and equality in outcomes: An integrative

model of social value orientation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77 (2),

337-349.

Van Marrewijk, M. (2003). Concepts and definitions of CSR and corporate sustainability:

Between agency and communion. Journal of Business Ethics, 44(2): 95-105.

Wackernagel, M., & Rees, W. E. (1997). Perceptual and structural barriers to investing in

natural capital: Economics from an ecological footprint perspective. Ecological

economics, 20(1), 3-24.

Walton, R. E. (1999). From control to commitment in the workplace. In Poole, M (Eds).

Human Resource Management: Critical Perspectives on Business and Management,

pp. 15-29.

Weick, K. E. (1989). Theory construction as disciplined imagination. Academy of

Management Review, 14(4), 516-531.

41
Table 1: Characteristics of control, commitment and sustainable HRM practices, and of HRM system

HRM practices / Characteristics of control Characteristics of commitment Characteristics of sustainable

system to facilitate based HRM system based HRM system HRM system

employee

sustainability

behaviour

Sustainable HRM practices for improved organizational financial performance with social consciousness

Employee selection Job specific technical skills Utilitarian instrumentalism Employee competencies with

and training on for organizational (Mariappanadar, 2003; Järlström et additional social consciousness

employee performance (Mossholder, al., 2016) and developmental characteristics of selection and

competencies Richardson & Settoon, humanism (Storey, 1995) are the training will align interests of

(Knowledge, skills 2011). characteristics of employee employees, organization and

and abilities - KSA) competencies (KSA) that are stakeholder compassion (Pandey

aligned with mutual benefits for an & Gupta, 2008) to achieve

42
 organization and employee improved organizational financial

interests. performance with social

consciousness.

Employee Instrumental extrinsic Intrinsic & extrinsic motivation for Intrinsic and extrinsic, and

compensation and motivation based on achieving organizational altruistic characteristics of

rewards practice for measurable performance performance oriented competitive employee compensation and

motivation output criteria (Heinsman et advantage (Rynes, Gerhart & rewards practices for employee

al., 2008). Minette 2004). motivation will facilitate to

achieve key stakeholders’

expectations along with improved

organizational financial

performance with social

consciousness (Mariappanadar,

2019).

43
Work structure for Employee participation in Organizational citizenship based Sustainability empowered

empowered decision decision-making is low due decision making to achieve decision making characteristics of

making to high work standardization organizational productivity work structure practices will

(Chiva, 2014). outcomes (Shih et al., 2013). benefit an organization, its

employees and the health of the

ecosystem related to the

organization.

Sustainable HRM practices for reduced negative side effects of work on employees

Work intensification Focused on improving High performance work practices Health harm of work is used as

on occupational working conditions for increased work overload and tasks characteristics of leading

health employee welfare demand to high level of negative indicators to prevent or delay the

(Andrewartha, 1998). side effects on employee health and onset of occupational illnesses.

well-being (Godard, 2001; Guest, and workplace wellness

2017). characteristics for occupational

44
 health and social well-being

practices for achieving and

maintaining low levels of the

health and the social harm of

work imposed on employees.

Work intensification Work activities are not High work-family facilitation and low Low social harm of work is the

on work-family considered to infringe on work-family conflict are characteristics organizational level leading

balance the family (Walton, 1999). from the individual employee indicators characteristics for
psychological level for work-family
work-family balance.
balance (Grzywacz & Butler, 2005)

Employee assistance Employee grievances are Employee assistance program Sustainable corporate assistance

to manage negative allowed to voice on (Berridge et al., 1997) for ‘worker’ program - Achieving ‘workplace’

side effects of work relatively small range of wellness to facilitate employees to wellness along with worker

work issues and the health cope with work-related stress and wellness (Mariappanadar, 2019).

issue is not one of those improve organizational outcomes.

45
 (Walton, 1999).

Sustainable HRM practices for reduced organizational ecology footprint

Employee selection Employee competencies Acquired green competencies Ecocentric characteristics of

on green (not related to green through previous experiences individual- and organizational-

competencies competencies) for instead of natural characteristics level green competencies based

(natural and complying with (i.e., personality etc.) improve employee selection and training

acquired environmental laws and meeting EMS targets for practices will facilitate green

competencies) regulations (Daily & Huang, competitive advantage of an behaviours for EMS to maintain

2001). organization (Subramanian et al., and preserve the health of

2016) ecosystem by reducing ecological

footprint.

Sustainable HRM system for integrated outcomes of corporate sustainability

Human capital Control based HRM system Strategic HRM system for human Sustainable HRM system with the

associated with for employees with human capital associated with very synthesis effects characteristic

46
 HRM system capital that is low in valuable and unique to gain focus on selecting and training

strategic value and competitive advantage (Hauff et al., employees with competencies to

uniqueness (Hauff et al., 2014). make decision choices to achieve

2014). integrated corporate sustainability

outcomes.

47

View publication stats