Implementing Green Management

in Business Organizations
Jose Mathews*

Green management essentially implies the integration of the principles of management and environmental
management that develops into a seamless relationship between the environment and management. In the
componential view, green management is not a unitary construct as it entails a number of components which
are interrelated and intertwined with environmental and managerial processes. Green management begins
with incorporating the green principles into the mission and vision of the company and translating the same
into specific organizational and managerial processes. In the actual operations, the management gives equal
attention to organizational goals and environmental goals so that development becomes sustainable in the
long run. The geographical features of the land are green and the nature that human beings are confronted
with is green. Man’s quest for wealth and material development however has brought about destruction on
the green planet, and the very lives of human beings are also endangered in this process. The prudence and
wisdom of man warns against the reckless use of nature, and now science tells us that unless preventive
and corrective measures are taken, the human beings are in for a bleak future that is not sustainable. It
is also recognized by managers that the corporations across the world have an obligation to save the lives
of the future generation by going green. The traditional management, as it is practiced, is unfriendly to nature
and is against sustainability principles, and it is to be revamped along the lines of environmental management
principles. This is the case for green management. This paper examines the different components that
constitute green management.

Introduction
Researchers and practitioners have failed to develop a specific definition of green management
even though it obviously implies managerial activities which are in the direction of
environmental sustainability (Pane et al., 2009). Opatha and Arulraj (2014) attribute four
meanings to ‘green’ or ‘greening’ which are generalizations across a wide variety of situations:
preservation of the natural environment (preserving the natural environment in its pristine
form and safeguarding it from harm); conservation of the natural environment (using the
environment at the required minimum level of requirement); avoidance or minimization of
environmental pollution (guarding against activities and outcomes that will endanger the
living beings and resources of the planet earth); and adding to the natural environment
(creation or replenishment of a green environment).
Further, Chryssides and Kaler (1993) find five common characteristics in ‘green’ issues
which too are very relevant in the organizational processes: responsible use of non-renewable
resources; search for sustainable growth and development; minimization of pollution; avoiding
the irreversible destruction of elements of the environment that cause drastic changes; and
conservation and preservation of beauty and the preservation of animal and plant life.
* Senior Lecturer, Gaeddu College of Business Studies, Royal University of Bhutan, Bhutan.
E-mail: josmathews@gmail.com

46 2018 IUP. All Rights Reserved.

© The IUP Journal of Business Strategy, Vol. XV, No. 2, 2018
 In the consideration of these green issues, which are also now organizational green issues,
researchers draw upon different nomenclatures like corporate environmentalism, corporate
environmental citizenship, environmental organization management, green management,
green-business practices, green HRM, green organizations, eco-centric organizations, eco-
efficient organizations, sustainable organizations and ecological organizations which refer to
the integration between environmental goals and business goals resulting in the application
of environmental management principles.

These multiple labelings of the interaction between Environmental Management (EM)

and organizational processes have not deterred researchers from systematizing and accounting
for the development of green management as an independent area of study by referring to a
number of discernible trends. Pane et al. (2009), based on the work of Nattrass and Altomare
(1999, cited by Pane et al., 2009), identify four phases in the development of green management.
The first phase began to evolve in the mid-1960s, a systematic environmental movement
originated in the industries and business organizations that brought out the reality that
much of the planet’s environmental problems were to be borne by the industrial organizations.
The 1970s saw the creation of Earth day, the first UN Environmental Conference, besides a
series of legislations by governments across the world.

The second era of environmental awareness spanned the 1980s, during which scientists,
climatologists and policy makers confirmed the greenhouse effect that impacts negatively on
the environment. Scientists also warned about climate change and the consequent
deterioration of Earth’s resources.

The third phase of environmental awareness was in the decade of 1990s that saw “a
proactive corporate response to environmental issues and a revelation that companies could
actually profit from being environmentally conscious by emphasizing upon continuous
improvements regarding environmental issues” (Pane et al., 2009).

The final phase was in the new Millennium era “that went beyond pollution preventing
and the reduction of environmental harm” (Pane et al., 2009). And in the contemporary
approach, there is an integration of company goals and environmental goals (Pane et al.,
2009). In the words of Pane et al. (2009), integration means “organizational leaders are realizing
that company goals and environmental goals should be one and the same. All organizations
need to make environmental issues a major concern in all of their business functions in order
to actively join in the noble effort of rescuing this planet that is in peril. While adopting
environmentally conscious strategies and practices which help the companies remain
competitive in their respective markets, the increased environmental concern during this
era is also driven by the motive to be socially responsible and to do what is morally right…
Organizations that are trying to become green need to integrate sustainability initiatives at
both strategic and operational levels…. Additionally they have become learning organizations
with an organic structure in order to adequately and efficiently respond to an environment
that is in constant flux” (Pane et al., 2009).

Implementing Green Management in Business Organizations 47

 The general position taken is that green management is to be viewed, defined, and measured
as any other variable related to organizational behavior (Pane et al., 2009). Organizations can
be categorized on a continuum that range from low to high levels of green management
which is in relation to the extent of the application of green management principles. As
research efforts and the application of EM principles differ across organizations, it is evident
that there can be multiple conceptualizations of green management or for that matter multiple
conceptualizations of the application of the environmental management in organizations.
In other words, what is implied here is that “one basic definition is not sufficient to describe
the concept in its entirety and that it may actually be composed of different types of green
management” (Pane et al., 2009). In this multidimensional view of green management, there
are a number of interrelated processes which are both environmentally and organizationally
related.
First of all, green HRM denotes the application of EM principles and theories in the
processes, practices and management of human resources (Renwick et al., 2008; and Zoogah,
2011). The emergence of green HRM is contingent on the successful application of EM
principles in all the functional areas of management.
The term eco-efficiency implies going beyond pollution prevention and reduction of
environmental harm to finding innovative ways to improve the manner in which materials
are used and products are produced (Nattrass and Altomare, 1999, cited by Pane et al., 2009).
Eco-efficient organizations use a manufacturing process where it focuses on a strategy that
minimizes wastage of environmental resources and achieves zero polluting environments in
its attempt to conserve, protect and create the environment.
Another nomenclature that is doing the rounds in this area of the interaction between
corporate and environment is corporate environmentalism wherein the theoretical
underpinnings are in relation to environmental concerns that emphasize the importance
given to resource acquisition, production process and distribution of goods and services. In
this area of corporate environmentalism, the prime issue is one of placing environment first
and then profitability (Pane et al., 2009).
Moreover, in the approach of corporate environmentalism, an inseparable and sustaining
relationship between environment and organizational activities is developed and brought
forward where the focus is on conserving the environment in its original form. In other
words, an inextricable link between environmental and corporate strategies is drawn, leading
to an approach of total quality environmental management that “strives toward improving
the environmental performance of an organization through the consideration of
environmental costs associated with all organizational processes” (Pane et al., 2009).
The differentiation and integration between organizational practices and sustainable
practices focus on decreasing the dependence on (1) materials from the Earth’s crust;
(2) unnatural substances; (3) activities that harm nature; (4) unnecessarily large amounts of
resources that do not yield an equivalent human value (Pane et al., 2009); (5) formulation of
corporate environmental strategies (Hart, 1997); (6) involvement of human resources

48 The IUP Journal of Business Strategy, Vol. XV, No. 2, 2018

specially the top leadership in the environmental management of organizations (Jabbour
and Santos, 2008); and (7) inculcating green culture and the development of green cognitions
in the organizational learning processes (Roome and Wijen, 2006).
Accordingly, green management is the organization-wide process of applying innovation
to achieve corporate sustainability and corporate environmentalism that bestows the
organization with a competitive advantage through the effective utilization of different
organizational and managerial mechanisms pertaining to material use, organizational learning
and culture and human resources.
Against this backdrop, this paper examines the different components that constitute
green management that helps environmental sustainability.

Green Management: A Componential View

Reviewing the literature, one finds different strands of research and application of
environmental management principles that integrate the business goals of profit maximization
and environmental goals of conservation, preservation and replenishment of environmental
resources. The different components that constitute the broader arena of green management
are environmental management principles and organizational processes in the
accomplishment of environmental and organizational goals.

Practice of Corporate Environmentalism and Corporate Environmental

Citizenship
Corporate environmentalism represents the management process of integrating
environmental concerns into organizational goals and strategies wherein it is defined as “the
organization-wide recognition of the legitimacy and importance of the biophysical
environment in the formulation of organizational strategy and the integration of
environmental issues into the strategic planning process” (Banerjee, 2002).
Pane et al. (2012) and Cherrier et al. (2012), based on the work of Banerjee (2002), suggest
different perspectives in the integration between environmental management and
organizational processes. In the first perspective of economic orientation, corporate
environmentalism is reflected in the role of a traditionalist who is a rational decision maker.
As a pragmatist, he expresses doubt about environmental sustainability, is financially minded
and fears uncertainty. As a rational decision-maker, the pragmatist carefully balances the
financial benefits in relation to environmental measures and is generally resistant to
environmental practices that interfere with the current practices that are profitable in the
short-term (Cherrier et al., 2012).
In the second approach that involves a paradigm shift, the sustain-centric paradigm is
promoted as a compromise between the traditional techno-centric and the more recent eco-
centric paradigm (Pane et al., 2009). In the techno-centric approach, the humans are the
masters of the earth and as such they are to be allowed to extract and exploit the earth to the
maximum resulting in limitless growth. The eco-centric perspective adheres to the view

Implementing Green Management in Business Organizations 49

that environment is supreme and man should play a role subordinate to nature and
its resources.
In the stakeholders’ perspective of social orientation, the organization takes on the identity
of an ecopreneur who avows by the responsibility for the future generation and also assumes
the role of a custodian of the natural environment (Cherrier et al., 2012). Ecopreneurship
combines entrepreneurialism and environmentalism in the management of the environment
and the organization. The organization becomes a stakeholder in the protection and the
conservation of the environment that in other words means that “organizations recognize
the importance of environmental issues and find ways to incorporate these issues into their
business strategies” (Pane et al., 2009).
And finally, the translation of the environmentalism into the strategic perspective
involves the consideration of optimizing the profitability and competitiveness of a firm
without compromising the environmental concerns.
Resource-based view of the organization is considered by Hart (1997) in the context of
corporate environmentalism and suggests that a firm’s competitive advantage is in relation
to the natural environment which is comprised of the interconnected strategies of pollution
prevention (elimination), product stewardship and sustainable development. For Hart (1997),
the first step for the companies is to move from pollution control to pollution prevention
where the former is a reactive approach and the latter is a proactive approach. Product
stewardship involves producing products that are easier to recover, reuse or recycle and the
third aspect of sustainable development implies the use of technology that is environmentally
sustainable.
Buysse and Verbeke (2003), drawing upon Hart (1997), suggest five strategic investment
domains for firms to become ‘greener’: (1) development of green competencies related to
green product and manufacturing technologies; (2) environmental training and employee
participation programs; (3) development of organizational competencies in the area of
environmental management; (4) development of capabilities in the routine-based
management systems and procedures at the input, process and output sides; and (5) formulation
of environmental-focused strategic planning.
A related concept that researchers resort to, to explain the social responsibility of
corporations as well as the environmental commitment and green organizational routines is
termed corporate environmental citizenship (Ozen and Kuskku, 2009). And it is defined as
all of the precautions and policies that corporations follow to reduce the hazards on the
environment along with the organizational systems and processes that impact the
environmental conditions.

Green Supply Chain Management (GrSCM)

GrSCM is defined as “integrating environmental thinking into supply chain management
including product design, material sourcing and selection, manufacturing processes, delivery

50 The IUP Journal of Business Strategy, Vol. XV, No. 2, 2018

of the final product to the consumers as well as end-of life management of the product after
its useful life” (Srivastava, 2007). GrSCM ranges from reactive monitoring of green
environmental management programs to more proactive practices implemented via various
R’s (Reduce, Re-use, Rework, Refurbish, Reclaim, Recycle, Remanufacture, Reverse logistics,
etc.) (Wang et al., 2013).
Srivastava (2007) discusses GrSCM under green design and green operations. Green design
emphasizes environmentally conscious design and life cycle assessment analysis of the product.
Green design implies understanding of how design decisions affect a product’s environmental
compatibility, design for material and product recovery and design for disassembly and waste
minimization.
Life cycle assessment analysis is understood as a process that evaluates the environmental,
occupational health and resource-related consequences of a product in all the phases of its
life (extracting and processing raw materials, production, transportation and distribution,
use, remanufacturing, recycling and final disposal) (Srivastava, 2007).
Green operations under GrSCM are concerned with integrating remanufacturing with
internal operations, integrating product design, product take-back and supply chain incentives
and integrating remanufacturing and reverse logistics with supply chain design (Srivastava,
2007) (remanufacturing is otherwise called recycling-integrated manufacturing).
According to Srivastava (2007), the other key green operations are product recovery,
disassembly, product re-use, reverse logistics and network design. Product recovery implies
the broad set of activities designed to reclaim value from a product at the end of its expiry.
Disassembly is a method of separating a product into its constituent parts, components,
subassemblies or other groupings. Four forms of re-use are described – direct re-use, repair,
recycling and remanufacturing.
And finally, under green operations, reverse logistics and network design are discussed,
which can refer to accommodating product returns and remanufacturing and re-use of such
parts and components in a profitable manner.

Green HRM
It is evident that the practice of environmental management is directly linked to human
resources management as the effective utilization of human resources results in the
accomplishment of both environmental and organizational goals. Once organizations
incorporate the environmental dimension into their dynamics, human resources have a
crucial role in stimulating the success of its integration with the environmental management
(Jabbour and Santos, 2008). HR immediately decides the success of green management. The
Green Growth Company is embodied in the human resources employed and the organizational
participants provide the vital link between environmental management principles and its
translation into actual operations (Revill, 2000).
According to Renwick et al. (2008), green process HRM implies the application of EM
principles in the different activities of HRM that start with recruitment and goes through

Implementing Green Management in Business Organizations 51

performance management and appraisal, training and development, employment relations,
pay and reward.
Green HRM is also understood in relation to the application of EM principles in the
overall functioning of the organization and in the implementation of various Voluntary
Environmental Programs (VEPs) (Ziegler and Nogareda, 2009) like negotiated agreements
between business and government, unilateral agreements by firms regarding EM systems (the
most important being ISO certification) and the following of eco-management and audit
schemes (Ziegler and Nogareda, 2009). These are the macro EM practices like waste reduction,
environmental preservation, energy conservation and sustainability (Ziegler and Nogareda,
2009).
The micro EM practices of structured or unstructured nature followed in the organization
by the personnel employed are called green HRM practices. These practices like reduced
paper use, greening of the interiors and proper wastage disposal are to be found in the employee
behavior of all functional departments. EMS commitment and policy planning,
implementation, measurement and evaluation and review and improvement are observed in
the green decisions and behaviors of the employees of the organization (Daily and Huang,
2001).
Green HRM is also understood in relation to EM systems, “the formal set of procedures
and policies that defines how an organization will manage its potential impacts on the natural
environment and on the health and welfare of the people who depend on it’’ (Darnall et al.
cited by Zoogah, 2011).
The practice of green HRM/Environmental HRM, according to the models of Wehrmeyer
(1996) and Renwick et al. (2008), involves the facilitation of an environmental vision
throughout the organization making use of the mechanisms of recruitment, training,
performance appraisals, rewards and employee involvement.
Achievement of environmental excellence is contingent on recruiting and retaining a
band of employees who are ‘green aware’ and knowledgeable and experienced in environmental
management that they are capable of achieving the environmental goals of a green
organization (Revill, 2000). Green recruiting that screens the candidates’ environmental
commitment and sensitivity to green matters has come to stay. Job descriptions are also being
changed to specify a number of environmental aspects in the process of recruitment (Renwick
et al., 2008).
Green training is to be implemented by an organization that goes green. Environmental
training is a narrower approach to green management in relation to organizational green
learning. Creating environmental consciousness, designing specific job-related and technical
training, self-managed training and action-learning networks are the different approaches
used in environmental training (Revill, 2000).
Using performance management in green management presents the challenge of specifying
the measurement criteria, the measurement process itself and enlisting employee cooperation

52 The IUP Journal of Business Strategy, Vol. XV, No. 2, 2018

(Renwick et al., 2008). Performance appraisal can cover topics such as environmental incidents,
usage of environmental responsibilities, compliance with environmental principles, frequency
of environment-friendly behavior and green knowledge (Renwick et al., 2008).
Providing monetary and non-monetary incentives to environmental performance is basic
to implementing green management in organizations. Providing incentives go a long way in
motivating the employees to be environment-friendly. The organization can introduce
innovative incentive schemes at the monetary and non-monetary levels (Renwick et al.,
2008).
Devising and implementing employee involvement programs produce a number of
environmental management outcomes. Employee involvement heightens the
accomplishment of environmental goals in different areas like waste reduction, creating
pollution-free environment and preservation and conservation of nature (Renwick et al.,
2008). Co-opting employees in the decision-making process, empowering of employees and
formation of green teams are excellent ways of enlisting employee involvement.
Green teams are defined as teams of members committed to solving environmental
problems or implementing environmental management programs to improve the
environmental performance record of the firm. Green teams are becoming popular in business
organizations as the dynamics of production strategy, competitive pressures and the use of
advanced technology demand greater commitment (Jabbour and Santos, 2008). As Beard
and Rees (2000, cited by Jabbour and Santos, 2008 ) report, green teams focus on creating
ideas to support organizational learning, to identify conflicts and to make decisions in the
practice of EM. Green teams can constitute an important unit of green HRM.

Organizational Learning and the Development of Shared Green

Cognitions
“Becoming a learning organization with respect to environmental issues” is an underlying
premise of implementing green management in business organizations and corporate
environmental (organizational) learning is the process of transforming a traditional
organization into one of an organization of green management (Pane et al., 2009). The process
of organizational learning is the golden route to practicing green management of people or
sustainable development or corporate environmentalism. “In the end, sustainable
development can’t be achieved without innovation, and innovation is best achieved in a
culture that embraces and fosters learning and change” (Senge et al., 1999).
Organizational learning is essentially seen as an information processing activity of
knowledge creation and sharing that ultimately changes or modifies the behavior. The ability
to predict performance from cognition (Cooke et al., 2001) is the basis for the development of
individual and shared/team cognitions or mental models that directly influences performance.
In the explanation of this learning process in organizations, researchers refer to different
stages/processes like acquisition, dissemination, interpretation and implementation,

Implementing Green Management in Business Organizations 53

all of which imply bringing about new relationships and explanations of phenomena
(Brattesta, 2011).
Organizational learning at the individual, group and organizational levels is basically
understood in relation to individual, group and organizational cognition or knowledge (Dicle
and Kose, 2014) that is created new or modified. More specifically, environmental knowledge
or green knowledge acquisition, interpretation, sharing and implementation are keys to
transforming a traditional organization.
March (1991) differentiates between two different types of learning – exploitative and
explorative learning. The former is a process of learning that is brought about in the existing
framework which is not substantially different from the old pattern and which is not
substantially new. In the literature, this form of learning is also known as ‘single loop’, ‘adaptive’,
‘operational’, ‘first-order’, ‘evolutionary’, ‘frame-taking’, ‘reactive’, and ‘incremental’ (Roome
and Wijen, 2006).
And the latter is a process of learning focused on bringing about a substantial knowledge
fundamentally different from the old pattern and it embraces a new path to goal
accomplishment. In the literature, this form of learning is variously known as ‘generative’,
‘strategic’, ‘second-order’, ‘revolutionary’, ‘frame-breaking’, ‘proactive’, and ‘radical’ (Roome
and Wijen, 2006).
Based on the work of March and Oslen (1975, cited by Bloor, 1999) and Kim (cited by
Bloor, 1999), Bloor (1999) refers to the following disruptions in organizational learning
which are culturally embedded in organizations. These types of learning impede effective
green management.
• Role-constrained learning – effective learning and action is prevented due to role
constraints or standard operating procedures.
• Audience learning – the blurred relationship between individual action and
organizational action.
• Superstitious learning – faulty inferences characterize the learning as there are
many missing links in the individual and organizational action where the role of
environment is unclear.
• Learning under ambiguity – ambiguous and unclear causal connections among the
variables as there is no conceptual learning.
• Situational learning – learning is situation-bound and there is no generalization
across similar situations.
• Fragmented learning – the individual learning that is not shared with others.
• Opportunistic learning – the organization indulges in unpredictable way of doing
things.
Organizational learning as a process of construction and internalization of meanings has
to take place for green management to take deep roots in the organization. It entails a shift in

54 The IUP Journal of Business Strategy, Vol. XV, No. 2, 2018

a person’s fundamental understandings and meanings of organization’s goals which are
accomplished in the learning process of deconstructing pre-existing meanings and
reconstructing new meanings (Cherrier et al., 2012).

The Development of Shared Green Cognition/Knowledge in Organizations

Cognition is the process of transforming, reducing, elaborating, storing, recovering and using
the sensory input of information and it enables the individual to understand and interpret
the environment of physical, organizational, social, political, natural, economic and related
realms of life.
Shared cognitions make it possible for the members to see and interpret the situation
through the same lens and to take consensual decisions producing shared patterns of behavior
(Cannon and Salas, 2001). Task-specific knowledge, task-related knowledge, knowledge of
teammates, and attitudes and beliefs are the four types of shared knowledge (Cannon and
Salas, 2001). Task-specific knowledge is specific procedures, sequences, actions and strategies
necessary to perform a task. Task-related knowledge involves general aspects of the task and
its related processes which mean that the knowledge can be in relation to the performance of
a number of tasks. Team members’ knowledge of other members’ strengths, weaknesses and
tendencies produces cooperative behaviors. The shared attitudes and beliefs unite the members
and create a common bond (Cannon and Salas, 2001).
Shared learning is the process by which the team develops new knowledge and insights
which influence behaviors (Jimenez and Sanz, 2011). Shared learning can involve the four
processes of knowledge acquisition (gaining information and knowledge), knowledge
distribution (sharing of information within the firm), knowledge interpretation and
assimilation and the fourth stage of generating organizational memory (distributed and stored
knowledge across organizational participants) (Huber, 1991, cited by Jimenez and Sanz, 2011).
Additionally, Tippins and Sohi (2003, cited by Jimenez and Sanz, 2011), refer to the five
stages of learning (information acquisition, information dissemination, shared interpretation,
declarative memory and procedural memory) that result in individual/team organizational
performance.
Creation and development of new schemata or knowledge structures can also follow
through the stages of concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualization
and active experimentation (Kolb, 1984, cited by Murray, 2002). For Murray (2002), the
development of group and organizational cognition is contingent on what is called ‘unbounded
learning’ that generally breaks the normal rules and procedures by new cycles of interpretation
and integration (Murray, 2002).
Individual cognitions or knowledge structures, variously understood as categories of
cognition, mental models, cognitive schemas and scripts, when shared, become team
knowledge structures, otherwise called team mental models. Team mental models are the
team’s cognitive representations of knowledge structures, cognitive maps and belief structures
that guide behavior (Klimoski and Muhammed, 1994). Mental models are psychological
representations of the environment with behavioral contingencies and they allow individuals

Implementing Green Management in Business Organizations 55

to understand phenomena, make inferences and experience events (Klimoski and Muhammed,
1994). Team mental models, which are more than an aggregation of individual’s knowledge
structures, facilitate team decision making and actions.
For Mohammed and Dumville (2001), information sharing, transactive memory, group
learning and cognitive consensus become the core of the development of shared cognitions
in organizations. Active face-to-face discussions or the use of electronic networks result in
the development of shared cognitions or team mental models (Mohammed and Dumville,
2001). Factors like pooling of information, features of the actual task and anticipated tasks,
face-to-face interaction, group size, composition, norms and roles determine the effectiveness
of shared information processing (Wittenbaum et al., 2004).
Transactive memories are those that are stored and retrieved in the interactional and
interpersonal processes. The shared memory pool allows each member to know who knows
what and channels information into the appropriate location (Mohammad and Dumville,
2001).
Group learning is “an ongoing process of reflection and action, characterized by asking
questions, seeking feedback, experimenting, reflecting on results and discussing errors or
unexpected outcomes of actions…thereby individuals (and group) acquire, share and combine
knowledge” (Edmondson, 2009).
Cognitive consensus is the consensus that members share on issues and interpretations
and in the consensus-building process differing views on common issues are no longer held
by members. However, optimal level of consensus and dissensus in framing perspectives will
contribute to better group activities and outcomes (Mohammad and Dumville, 2001).
Mohammed and Dumville (2001) and Van (2011) refer to other mechanisms that facilitate
group learning and shared cognitions. Active interactions in the group and interpersonal
exchanges lead to shared information processing and creation of shared knowledge
(Mohammed and Dumville, 2001). Moreover, group interactions are further qualified with
discourse patterns that contribute to the development of shared cognitions (Van, 2011).
And for Van (2011), the concepts of construction, co-construction and constructive
conflict facilitate the development of team mental models. Construction and co-construction
of meanings are involved in interactions and deliberations and open expositions on issues.
Constructive conflict offers the members an opportunity to challenge the views of others
and to modify and refine contending contents of information.
The significance of shared cognition is in relation to the formation and execution of
green decisions and the enactment of behaviors (Zoogah, 2011). Shared learning or shared
cognition is the internal cognitive structures that produce behavior and one can predict
team performance from team cognition which suggests that development of shared team
knowledge is the key to team behavior (Cooke et al., 2001). Cognition thus leads to action
and the type of knowledge that the individual processes/possesses determines the nature of
action, which in other words means possession of green knowledge results in green action.

56 The IUP Journal of Business Strategy, Vol. XV, No. 2, 2018

The processing of green knowledge of different forms and the development of shared green
cognitions take the organization to sustainable activities, where the important point is what
these possible knowledge structures/contents are.

Green Knowledge Contents

Ramus (2002) elaborated on the possible knowledge contents that a green organization must
focus on in the development of green cognitions which consist of (1) a documented corporate
environmental policy that specifies the environmental targets and sustainable development
objectives; (2) information related to the adoption of a life cycle approach to company’s
products and services; (3) creation and dissemination of sustainability reports;
(4) EM system that involves integration of environmental goals, policies and responsibilities
into daily job functions. ISO 14001 or the European Union’s EM and Auditing Scheme are in
vogue. These can be used as standards or models to implement EM programs; (5) suppliers’
information related to environmental practices and performance. Also sharing information
on GrSCM; (6) building of environmental capabilities, improving of employee abilities and
problem-solving skills to contribute to EM; (7) creation of a healthy, safe and preserving and
nourishing environment through employee involvement; (8) information pertaining to life-
cycle analysis (assessment) wherein the company is to provide information on remanufacturing
and related logistics; (9) employee involvement in bridging the gap between traditional
business processes and green business; (10) information on renewable/clean energy;
(11) information on toxic chemical use and its reduction; (12) policy on the use of
unsustainable products; and (13) information on environmental standards at home and
abroad.

Creating Eco-Efficient Organizations

It was in the year 1991 that the Business Council for Sustainable Development coined the
term ‘eco-efficiency’ (Moreira et al., 2010). The goal of creating eco-efficient organizations is
to bring to the lowest level the negative impact on environmental resources so that the goal
is one of promoting sustainable development. According to Moreira et al. (2010), eco-efficiency
concept translates the simple idea of “creating more with less” by (i) lowered dependence on
material intensity; (ii) minimization of energy intensity in both products and services;
(iii) reducing the quantity and the dispersion of toxic substance and maintaining a lowered
level of toxicity; (iv) promotion of recycling; (v) use of clean and renewable energy;
(vi) extending the durability of products; and (vii) increasing service intensity.
According to one approach (Zhang et al., 2008), eco-efficiency is calculated based on the
ratio between the (added) value of what has been produced (income, high quality goods and
services, jobs, GDP, etc.) and the (added) environmental impact of the product/services (Zhang
et al., 2008).
Creation of eco-efficient organizations is vested with the green management of
organizations that is contingent on the adoption of a production and delivery system that is
environment-friendly and eco-centric (Moreira et al., 2010). The level of the involvement of
human resources and the adoption of suitable management practices is paramount to the

Implementing Green Management in Business Organizations 57

creation of eco-efficient organizations. Brezet et al. (2001) refer to the importance attached
to human resources in the development of eco-efficient organizations. The behavioral patterns
of employees and top management, the learning activities and the future learning potential
matter in the innovative mechanisms of eco-efficient organizations.

Green Organizational Culture

Each organization can be differentiated by its own distinguishing culture and culture as an
evolved byproduct of organizational interaction endows an organization with a distinctive
pattern of behavior. In relation to green management it has been found that green
organizational culture is identified to be a key variable (Jabbour and Santos, 2008) and an
organization’s culture and subculture influence and shape interpretations of and actions on
environmental issues. The literature on culture is an ample proof that shared cultural meanings
and interpretations provide the organization with a platform to launch significant changes,
say green management strategies (Howard, 2006).
Green organizational culture is “defined as a set of assumptions, values, symbols, and
organizational artifacts that reflect either the desire or necessity of a company to operate in
an environmentally correct way” (Jabbour and Santos, 2008). The shared assumptions, beliefs
and patterns of thinking are greenish in nature which is clearly different from a traditional
organization that does not follow sustainable principles.
Linnenluecke and Griffiths (2010) analyze green culture relating the conceptualization
of corporate sustainability and organizational culture. Green culture can be understood at
three levels: the surface level (the adoption of corporate sustainability principles which are
visible in technical solutions and sustainability reports), the value level (the adoption of
sustainability principles is effected in the employees’ value and beliefs on environment) and
on an underlying level (the adoption of corporate sustainability principles requires a change
in core assumptions of environmental management). In other words, green organizational
culture is understood as observable culture (the visible culture at the surface level), espoused
values (strategies, goals and philosophies) and underlying assumptions (unconscious beliefs
and perceptions that form the ultimate source of values).
Moreover, Linnenluecke and Griffiths (2010) in their exposition of the different typologies
of organization that embrace corporate sustainability ideals suggest that organizations
dominated by an open systems culture greatly value organizational processes that facilitate
the implementation of ecological principles and ultimately the organization becomes a greener
one. The understanding and belief that guide the organization is one that organizations are
not separate from the natural environment but are located and operate within it
(Linnenluecke and Griffiths, 2010).

Top Management Support

The significant and crucial role played by top management in facilitating green management
in organizations is attested by researchers and practitioners. The top management support
mediates the impact of public and social interest, regulatory forces and competitive advantage

58 The IUP Journal of Business Strategy, Vol. XV, No. 2, 2018

on orientation and environmental strategies (Buil et al., 2008). The top leader’s knowledge
about environmental risks and problems, their values and ideals and lifestyle can directly
affect corporate environmental commitment of the organizational participants as these
variables directly influence the development of favorable attitudes to environmentalism
(Jabbour and Santos, 2008). The leadership role of top managers makes a definitive impact in
making sustainable practices a core business value (Johnson and Walck, 2004). Further, effective
integration of the environmental dimension into the organizational processes requires the
recognition on the part of top leadership that environmentalism is to be promoted as a new
value and that top leadership’s commitment that environmental practices can influence the
routines of a company (Jabbour and Santos, 2008).
Further, managers are in a position to influence organizational learning and cultural
dynamics and processes by the creation of cross-functional teams, sharing of a world vision,
reframing of events or stories within the organization, development of self-awareness and
group awareness and development of procedures to capture and disseminate new knowledge
which are pertinent to green management (Bloor, 1999).

Conclusion
Organization as a rational decision-maker concentrating on profit maximization at the cost
of environment is no longer sustainable in these times of global warming, climate change,
depletion of natural resources and threatened life of the humanity. In its management,
organizations are moving from techno-centric practices to eco-centric practices, and one
can find organizations that fall in this continuum. The challenge of following green
management relates to the efficient use of technology and natural resources. The single most
challenge, of course, is willingness on the part of the managers to go green and it may involve
foregoing a quantum of profit in the initial stages. And once the organization becomes fully
green, pure green, there is no going back as it becomes financially viable and environmentally
sustainable.

References
1. Banerjee S B (2002), “Corporate Environmentalism: The Construct and Its
Measurement”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 55, No. 3, pp. 177-191.
2. Bloor G (1999), “Organizational Culture, Organizational Learning and Total Quality
Management: A Literature Review and Synthesis”, Australian Health Review, Vol. 22,
No. 3, pp. 162-179.
3. Boiral O (2002), “Tacit Knowledge and Environmental Management”, Long Range
Planning, Vol. 35, No. 3, pp. 291-317.
4. Brattestå K I (2011), “An Organizational Learning Perspective on Environmental
Management”, Master’s Thesis, Department of Economics and Resource Management,
Norwejian University of Life Sciences.

Implementing Green Management in Business Organizations 59

 5. Brezet H, Bijma A S, Ehrenfeld J and Silvester S (2001), “The Design of Eco-Efficient
Services, Methods, Tools and Review of the Case Study Based Designing Eco-Efficient
Services Project”, Report for Dutch Ministries of Environment (VROM).
6. Buil Carrasco I, Fraj Andrés E and Matute Vallejo J (2008), “Corporate Environmentalism
Strategy in the Spanish Consumer Product Sector: A Typology of Firms”, Business Strategy
and the Environment, Vol. 17, No. 6, pp. 350-368.
7. Buysse K and Verbeke A (2003), “Proactive Environmental Strategies: A Stakeholder
Management Perspective”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 24, No. 5, pp. 453-470.
8. Cannon Bowers J A and Salas E (2001), “Reflections on Shared Cognition”, Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 195-202.
9. Cherrier H, Russell S V and Fielding K (2012), “Corporate Environmentalism and Top
Management Identity Negotiation”, Journal of Organizational Change Management,
Vol. 25, No. 4, pp. 518-534.
10. Chryssides G D and Kaler J H (1993), An Introduction to Business Ethics, Chapman and
Hall, London, England.
11. Cooke N J, Kiekel P A and Helm E E (2001), “Measuring Team Knowledge During Skill
Acquisition of a Complex Task”, International Journal of Cognitive Ergonomics, Vol. 5,
No. 3, pp. 297-315.
12. Daily B F and Huang S C (2001), “Achieving Sustainability through Attention to Human
Resource Factors in Environmental Management”, International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, Vol. 21, No. 12, pp. 1539-1552.
13. Dicle Ü and Köse C (2014), “The Impact of Organizational Learning on Corporate
Sustainability and Strategy Formulation with the Moderating Effect of Industry Type”,
Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 150, pp. 958-967.
14. Edmondson A (1999), “Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams”,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 44, No. 2, pp. 350-383.
15. Hart S L (1997), “Beyond Greening: Strategies for a Sustainable World”, Harvard Business
Review, Vol. 75, No. 1, pp. 66-77.
16. Howard-Grenville J A (2006), “Inside the “Black Box” How Organizational Culture
and Subcultures Inform Interpretations and Actions on Environmental Issues”,
Organization & Environment, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 46-73.
17. Jabbour C J C and Santos F C A (2008), “Relationships Between Human Resource
Dimensions and Environmental Management in Companies: Proposal of a Model”,
Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 51-58.
18. Jimenez-Jimenez D and Sanz-Valle R (2011), “Innovation, Organizational Learning,
and Performance”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 64, No. 4, pp. 408-417.

60 The IUP Journal of Business Strategy, Vol. XV, No. 2, 2018

19. Johnson D and Walck C (2004), “Certified Success: Integrating Sustainability into
Corporate Management Systems”, Journal of Forestry, Vol. 102, No. 5, pp. 32-39.
20. Klimoski R and Mohammed S (1994), “Team Mental Model: Construct or Metaphor?”,
Journal of Management, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 403-437.
21. Linnenluecke M K and Griffiths A (2010), “Corporate Sustainability and Organizational
Culture”, Journal of World Business, Vol. 45, No. 4, pp. 357-366.
22. March J G (1991), “Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning",
Organization Science, Vol. 2, No.1, pp. 71-87.
23. Mohammed S and Dumville B C (2001), “Team Mental Models in a Team Knowledge
Framework: Expanding Theory and Measurement across Disciplinary Boundaries”,
Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 89-106.
24. Moreira F, Alves A C and Sousa R M (2010), “Towards Eco-Efficient Lean Production
Systems”, in J Olhager and E Persson (Eds.), Balanced Automation Systems for Future
Manufacturing Networks, Springer, Boston.
25. Murray P (2002), “Cycles of Organisational Learning: A Conceptual Approach”,
Management Decision, Vol. 40, No. 3, pp. 239-247.
26. Opatha H H D N P and Arulrajah A A (2014), “Green Human Resource Management:
Simplified General Reflections”, International Business Research, Vol. 7, No. 8,
pp. 101-112.
27. Özen S and Küskü F (2009), “Corporate Environmental Citizenship Variation in
Developing Countries: An Institutional Framework”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 89,
No. 2, pp. 297-313.
28. Pane Haden S S, Oyler J D and Humphreys J H (2009), “Historical, Practical, and
Theoretical Perspectives on Green Management: An Exploratory Analysis”, Management
Decision, Vol. 47, No. 7, pp. 1041-1055.
29. Ramus C A (2002), “Encouraging Innovative Environmental Actions: What Companies
and Managers Must Do”, Journal of World Business, Vol. 37, No. 2, pp. 151-164.
30. Renwick D, Redman T and Maguire S (2008), “Green HRM: A Review, Process Model,
and Research Agenda”, University of Sheffield Management School Discussion Paper,
Vol. 1, pp. 1-46.
31. Revill C (2000), “The Greening of Personnel/Human Resource Management: An
Assessment”, International Journal of Applied HRM, Vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 1-30.
32. Roome N and Wijen F (2006), “Stakeholder Power and Organizational Learning in
Corporate Environmental Management”, Organization Studies, Vol. 27, No. 2,
pp. 235-263.
33. Senge P, Kliener A, Roberts C et al. (1999), The Dance of Change: The Challenges of Sustaining
Momentum in Learning Organizations, Doubleday, New York.

Implementing Green Management in Business Organizations 61

34. Srivastava S K (2007), “Green Supply Chain Management: A State of the Art Literature
Review”, International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 53-80.
35. Van den Bossche P, Gijselaers W et al. (2011), “Team Learning: Building Shared Mental
Models”, Instructional Science, Vol. 39, No. 3, pp. 283-301.
36. Wang Y F, Chen S P, Lee Y C and Tsai C T S (2013), “Developing Green Management
Standards for Restaurants: An Application of Green Supply Chain Management”,
International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 34, pp. 263-273.
37. Wehrmeyer W (1996), Greening People – Human Resources and Environmental Management,
Greenleaf Publishing, Sheffield, England.
38. Wittenbaum G M, Hollingshead A B and Botero I C (2004), “From Cooperative to
Motivated Information Sharing in Groups: Moving Beyond the Hidden Profile
Paradigm”, Communication Monographs, Vol. 71, No. 3, pp. 286-310.
39. Zhang B, Bi J, Fan Z, Yuan Z and Ge J (2008), “Eco-Efficiency Analysis of Industrial
System in China: A Data Envelopment Analysis Approach”, Ecological Economics,
Vol. 68, No. 1, pp. 306-316.
40. Ziegler A and Nogareda J S (2009), “Environmental Management Systems and
Technological Environmental Innovations: Exploring the Causal Relationship”, Research
Policy, Vol. 38, No. 5, pp. 885-893.
41. Zoogah D B (2011), “The Dynamics of Green HRM Behaviors: A Cognitive Social
Information Processing Approach”, German Journal of Human Resource Management,
Vol. 25, No. 2, pp. 117-139.

Reference # 33J-2018-06-03-01

62 The IUP Journal of Business Strategy, Vol. XV, No. 2, 2018

Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction
prohibited without permission.