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

net/publication/328388573

Promoting employee's proenvironmental behavior through green human

resource management practices

Article  in  Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management · October 2018

DOI: 10.1002/csr.1694

CITATIONS READS

194 11,053

6 authors, including:

Bilal Bin Saeed Bilal Afsar

COMSATS University Islamabad Hazara University
20 PUBLICATIONS   429 CITATIONS    95 PUBLICATIONS   2,496 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Hafeez Shakir Imran Khan

COMSATS University Islamabad COMSATS University, Abbottabad Campus/Pakistan
12 PUBLICATIONS   309 CITATIONS    26 PUBLICATIONS   632 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

The Environmental Impacts of FDI View project

Contribution to Review Process View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Imran Khan on 12 April 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Received: 9 March 2018 Revised: 6 September 2018 Accepted: 16 September 2018
DOI: 10.1002/csr.1694

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Promoting employee's proenvironmental behavior through

green human resource management practices
Bilal Bin Saeed1 | Bilal Afsar2 | Shakir Hafeez1 | Imran Khan1 | Muhammad Tahir1 |
1
Muhammad Asim Afridi

1
Department of Management Sciences,
COMSATS Institute of Information
Technology, Abbottabad, Pakistan
2
Department of Management Sciences,
Hazara University, Mansehra, Pakistan
Correspondence
Bilal Bin Saeed, Department of Management
Sciences, COMSATS Institute of Information
Technology, Abbottabad, Pakistan.
Email: bilalbinsaeed@ciit.net.pk
Abstract
Success of organizational initiatives for environmental sustainability hinges upon
employees' proenvironmental behaviors. One of the contemporary important chal-
lenges faced by HR professionals is to ensure proper integration of environmental
sustainability into human resource policies. The green human resource management
(green HRM) has emerged from organizations engaging in practices related to
protection of environment and maintaining ecological balance. The aim of this study
is to examine the effects of green HRM practices (green recruitment and selection,
green training and development, green performance management and appraisal,
green reward and compensation, and green empowerment) on employee's
proenvironmental behavior. Moreover, this study is going to test the mediating effect
of proenvironmental psychological capital and the moderating effect of environmental
knowledge on green HRM practices–proenvironmental behavior. Data from 347
employees working in coal generating, power industry, food, chemical, and pharma-
ceutical industries were collected. Results revealed that green HRM practices
positively affected employee's proenvironmental behavior, and proenvironmental
psychological capital mediated this link. Employee's environmental knowledge
moderated the effect of green HRM practices on proenvironmental behavior.

KEY W ORDS

green empowerment, green HRM, green performance management and appraisal, green
recruitment and selection, green reward and compensation, green training and development,
proenvironmental behavior, psychological capital

1 | I N T RO D U CT I O N proenvironmental initiatives (Zibarras & Coan, 2015; Zsóka, Szerényi,

It is now largely acknowledged that employees play an important part
in the achievement of corporate greening by performing a wide range
of proenvironmental behaviors (Lülfs & Hahn, 2013). Despite the
growing interest in studying environmental management and its
potential benefits to industry, few studies have examined the anteced-
ents of employees' proenvironmental behaviors. In the past decades,
irreversible climate changes, prevalence of environmental pollution,
and increasing resource scarcity have progressed at an alarming speed.
Organizations around the world are increasingly implementing various
Széchy, & Kocsis, 2013). Yet the success and, in some cases, the cre-
ation of many proenvironmental initiatives implemented at the firm
level rely on employees' proenvironmental behaviors (Robertson &
Barling, 2013; Vicente‐Molina, Fernández‐Sáinz, & Izagirre‐Olaizola,
2013). As such, these behaviors are considered to be important con-
tributors to corporate environmental performance (Blok, Wesselink,
Studynka, & Kemp, 2015) that have implications not only for the
natural environment but also for organizations (e.g., financial perfor-
mance) and their members (e.g., leader effectiveness and employee
job satisfaction; see Norton, Parker, Zacher, & Ashkanasy, 2015).

424 © 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/csr Corp Soc Resp Env Ma. 2019;26:424–438.
SAEED ET AL.
In recent years, scholars have recognized the importance of
employees' proenvironmental behaviors such that a growing body of
research has begun to emerge (Norton et al., 2015; Paillé, Chen, Boiral,
& Jin, 2014). However, despite the previous literature, numerous
issues remain misunderstood. In this regard, Dumont, Shen, and Deng
(2017) suggested that one interesting topic to address is the role of
green human resource management (HRM) practices to enhance
employees' proenvironmental behaviors. However, they suggest that
other psychological and personal factors could further explain the
effect of green HRM on proenvironmental behavior.
Although this research provides initial insight into the role of
green HRM practices in predicting employees' proenvironmental
behaviors, a comprehensive understanding of the processes and
mechanisms through which green HRM practices affect such behavior
is lacking (Dumont et al., 2017). Furthermore, an understanding of the
boundary conditions to the effects of green HRM practices on
employee's proenvironmental behavior has been neglected (Zibarras
& Coan, 2015). The goal of our research is to fill these knowledge gaps
by examining the effect of various green HRM practices on
employees' proenvironmental behaviors. It is argued that organiza-
tional policies and practices, such as HRM, shape employee psycho-
logical climate, that is, individuals' perceptions of the work
environment (Li, Frenkel, & Sanders, 2011). Consistent with the psy-
chological climate literature, organizational green HRM practices
would lead to proenvironmental psychological climate perceptions,
which are in turn significantly related to proenvironmental behavior.
We also investigate how environmental knowledge and awareness
of employees moderate the effect of green HRM practices on
employees' proenvironmental behaviors.
2 | T HE O R E T I CA L B A CK GR O U N D S A N D
H Y P O T H E S E S D E V EL O P M EN T
2.1 | Green HRM
It was in the new millennium era that a proactive corporate response
to environmental issues emerged “that went beyond pollution
preventing and the reduction of environmental harm” (Renwick,
Redman, & Maguire, 2013). And in the contemporary approach, there
is an integration of company goals and environmental goals (Renwick
et al., 2013). Organizations are faced with the need to enhance eco-
logical and social sustainability and environmental performance (Ardito
& Dangelico, 2018). The practice of environmental management is
directly linked to human resources management as the human
resources constitute the life–blood of the organization and stimulate
the success of its integration with the environmental management
(Jabbour, de Sousa Jabbour, Govindan, Teixeira, & de Souza Freitas,
2013). The globally growing concern for environment compels organi-
zations to adopt green HRM practices, that is, “HRM aspects of green
management,” to promote employee proenvironmental behavior in the
workplace (Renwick et al., 2013, p. 1). Green HRM is defined by Ren-
wick et al. (2013) as “HRM activities, which enhance positive environ-
mental outcomes” (p. 4). Green HRM utilizes human resources in the
process of applying innovation to achieve environmental performance,
425
waste reduction, social responsibility, and a competitive advantage via
continuous learning and development and by embracing environmen-
tal goals and strategies that are fully integrated with the goals and
strategies of the organization (Renwick et al., 2013).
HRM has the ability to measure and influence employee environ-
ment‐related behavior, attitudes, knowledge, and motivation. Hence,
organizations can utilize HRM to effectively deliver and implement
environment friendly policies (Guziana & Dobers, 2013; Jabbour
et al., 2013). To engender proenvironmental behaviors, commitment
from the management, organizational and supervisor support, and
HR practices, are necessary, just like general creativity and innovation
(Provasnek, Sentic, & Schmid, 2017; Sugita & Takahashi, 2015).
According to Tang, Chen, Jiang, Paillé, and Jia (2018), green HRM
refers to HRM practices with the intention to promote environment
friendly use of resources, which will reinforce the cause of environ-
mental performance in general and will increase employee awareness
and commitments on the issues of environmental management in
particular.
Green HRM practices and systems make employees of the organi-
zation green for the benefit of individual, society, natural environment,
and the business (Opatha & Arulrajah, 2014) and ensure environment
safety (Jabbour & Santos, 2008). Green HRM practices help organiza-
tions to create green workforce that is able to appreciate and under-
stand green initiatives. Mishra (2017) asserts that green HRM is
implemented throughout the HRM process of planning, recruitment
and selection, training and development, and compensation and
appraisal, with an aim to maintain green objectives. The emergence
of green HRM includes the extent of improving the social (i.e., work‐
life balance) and economic well‐being (i.e., sustain profits) beside
awareness toward environmental concern (i.e., reduced wastes). Green
HRM has actually supported the paradigmatic understanding of the
concept of “triple bottom‐line”; that is to say, that green HRM involves
practices aligned with the three sustainability pillars of environment,
social, and economic balance (Opatha & Arulrajah, 2014) and bring
benefits to the organization in the long run (Mishra, 2017).
Green HRM denotes the application of environmental manage-
ment principles and theories in the processes, practices, and manage-
ment of human resources (Renwick, Redman, & Maguire 2008). A
supportive work environment characterized by green HR practices
relate positively with an employee's willingness to create and imple-
ment environment friendly ideas (Babiak & Trendafilova, 2011;
Evangelinos, Nikolaou, & Leal Filho, 2015). Green HRM implies the
application of environmental management principles in different activ-
ities of HRM that starts with recruitment and goes through perfor-
mance management and appraisal, training and development,
employment relations, pay and reward, and exit. It has been proposed
that green HRM can be measured by considering its multidimensional
nature (e.g., Renwick et al., 2013). For example, Jabbour, Santos, and
Nagano (2008) argued that improvement in environmental perfor-
mance depends on making full use of training, teamwork, appraising
environmental goals, nonfinancial rewards, and organizational cultures.
Studies that consider green HRM's multidimensional nature take into
account its diverse‐related dimensions. For example, Perron, Côté,
and Duffy (2006) proposed that green HRM should include environ-
mental vision, training, evaluating employees' environmental
426
performance, and providing reward programs. Renwick et al. (2013)
suggested that selecting, recruiting, training, and developing environ-
mental knowledge can be considered as the constituents of green
HRM.
2.2 | Green recruitment and selection
Organizations can attract and choose candidates who will commit to
environmental issues (Jabbour et al., 2008). Green recruitment and
selection has been viewed as an important component in green
HRM practices (Yusoff & Nejati, 2017). On the basis of the previous
studies (e.g., Renwick et al., 2013), we summarize green recruitment
and selection in the three aspects of candidates' green awareness,
green employer branding, and green criteria to attract candidates.
First, candidates' green awareness is the basic aspect of green recruit-
ment and selection and involves personality factors that enable orga-
nizational environmental goals to be achieved, such as green
consciousness, conscientiousness, and the agreeableness of candi-
dates. Employees who are of environmental value have been found
to actively enhance their environmental knowledge in the operational
process, which in turn enhances the environmental performance of
their firms (e.g., Perron et al., 2006). Firms should therefore attract
and select candidates with green awareness using a series of tests,
to ensure that all employees are positive about environmental issues.
Second, green employer branding refers to an organization's
image and reputation related to environmental management, which
can be formed through green HRM practices (Jackson, Renwick,
Jabbour, & Muller‐Camen, 2011). Job seekers can perceive a good fit
between their own and an organization's values through green
employer branding, and they may feel a sense of pride working for
an organization with a good environmental reputation. Job seekers
tend to take information about an organization's environmental per-
formance and description as criteria to judge how organizations treat
their employees. Job seekers can also be attracted to organizations
with positive green signals (Jabbour et al., 2013). From this viewpoint,
therefore, green branding by employers is an effective method of
attracting and selecting potential employees who are positive about
environmental issues and images. Third, employees should be evalu-
ated and selected based on green criteria. For example, recruiting
firms can emphasize environmental aspects in job descriptions and
employee specifications. Questions related to environmental knowl-
edge, values, and beliefs can be asked and those employees who per-
form better in these aspects can be selected (Renwick et al., 2013).
2.3 | Green training and development
Green training and development refer to a system of activities that
motivate employees to learn environment protection skills and pay
attention to environmental issues, which is a key in accomplishing
environmental objectives (Jabbour, 2011). Training can increase
employees' awareness, knowledge, and skills in environmental activi-
ties (Sammalisto & Brorson, 2008). Green training should be provided
along with education programs to all members of the organization, not
only those linked with environmental departments. Green training can
enhance employees' awareness of proenvironmental activities in the
SAEED ET AL.
workplace. Green training programs can help employees understand
more about the importance of environmental protection, which makes
them more sensitive to environmental control and/or prevention pro-
cesses, such as collecting data on waste and identifying pollution
sources (Kjaerheim, 2005).
Baumgartner and Winter (2014) found that implementation of
corporate environmental practices such as training employees to take
care of the natural environment, increasing environmental awareness,
and allowing them to enhance their capabilities and self‐efficacy to
address environmental issues in an effective manner would help
employees to adopt responsible environmental behavior in the form
of proenvironmental behaviors. Green training also provides knowl-
edge management that enables employees to carry out environmental
activities. Training, appraisal system, and rewards help employees to
engage in proenvironmental behaviors as a consequence of greater
environmental awareness, autonomous motivation, and strong inten-
tion to protect the environment (Dias‐Sardinha & Reijnders, 2001). A
report revealed that environmental knowledge and values in China
are drivers of employees' environmental actions. Through green
knowledge management, employees can receive extensive green
training, enhancing their knowledge of and skills in environmental pro-
tection and improving their abilities in dealing with complex environ-
mental‐management problems (Sammalisto & Brorson, 2008). For
example, through training, employees can gain knowledge of how to
collect data on waste and increase their environmental expertise.
Green training builds a climate that encourages all employees to
become involved in environmental initiatives (Kjaerheim, 2005).
Renwick et al. (2013) suggested that integrated training not only
includes comprehensive programs but also links them to appraisals
and performance management systems, which is a method of creating
an environmental work climate.
2.4 | Green performance management and appraisal
Green performance management and appraisal comprises a system
of evaluating activities of employees' performance in the process of
environmental management (Jabbour et al., 2008). Research has
focused on specific aspects of green performance management, such
as delivering feedback and balancing metrics (Jackson et al., 2011;
Zibarras & Coan, 2015). It has also been argued that these methods
of measuring green performance management are not effective, as
different organizations have different structural attributes, and
resources that use uniform standards across organizations will be
arbitrary (Jasch, 2000; Kuo, Yeh, & Yu, 2012). Organizations need
to identify a systematic method of implementing green performance
management. Adopting a common green performance management
standard is therefore a priority for several types of organizations.
Green performance management creates green performance
indicators to establish a series of green criteria for all members in
performance appraisals, covering topics such as environmental
incidents, environmental responsibilities, reduction of carbon
emissions, and communicating of environmental concerns and
policies.
Hermann, Kroeze, and Jawjit (2007) claimed that for both man-
agers and employees, the most important aspect of green
SAEED ET AL.
performance management is performance appraisals, which will affect
the process and effectiveness of subsequent rewards and compensa-
tion. Clear green performance indicators are therefore indispensable
in performance management systems. Evaluating managers' green
outcomes emphasizes their role in environmental management, which
can lead them to be more responsible for environmental management
performance. It is necessary to identify green outcomes and encour-
age managers to be accountable for environmental management per-
formance. Another way to measure green performance is to deal
with green performance outcomes of members who do not meet envi-
ronmental management indicators or is not compliant with green goals
(Jackson et al., 2011). Using these negative measures appropriately
may push employees to behave more environmentally and strive for
green goals in their future work.
2.5 | Green reward and compensation
In line with a strategic approach to reward management, green reward
and compensation is a system of financial and nonfinancial rewards,
aiming at attracting, retaining, and motivating employees to contribute
to environmental goals (Jabbour et al., 2013). It has been argued that
employees may feel more motivated by nonfinancial rewards through
green pay and reward, such as recognition and praise (Jabbour et al.,
2008; Jackson et al., 2011). Incentives and rewards may be more pow-
erful measures of aligning employees' performance with the firm's
goals than other practices in the HRM system. However, generally,
most researchers acknowledge that combining monetary and
nonmonetary rewards is more effective in motivating employees
(Jabbour et al., 2008; Renwick et al., 2013). Nonfinancial rewards
should be offered alongside financial incentives, in the form of green
travel benefits, green tax, and green recognition.
Green travel benefits include rewards for employees' transport
and travel. They can be guided to reduce their carbon footprints and
have greater awareness of environmental protection. Green tax incen-
tives include exemptions to promote the use of bicycles and a less pol-
luting car fleet. Financial incentives such as these have been
introduced by U.K. companies and have a major effect on employees'
willingness to protect the environment (Haque, 2017). Green recogni-
tion entails a system of nonfinancial rewards for employees, such as
company‐wide public recognition, paid vacations, and gift certificates.
These green recognition rewards lead to feelings of pride among col-
leagues and more effectively encourage proenvironmental behaviors
(Veleva & Ellenbecker, 2001).
2.6 | Green empowerment
Employees can be provided with opportunities to participate in envi-
ronmental management, which stimulates them to support the pre-
vention of pollution and identify environmental opportunities
(Renwick et al., 2013). A great deal of research has shown that
employees' green involvement is crucial in improving the performance
of environmental management systems, such as reducing waste and
pollution in workplaces and making full use of resources (Tseng, Tan,
& Siriban‐Manalang, 2013). Renwick et al. (2013) highlighted a number
of processes of employee green involvement from an integrated
427
perspective. Renwick et al. (2013) identified five aspects for measuring
green involvement: clear green vision, a green learning climate, various
communication channels, offering green practices, and encouraging
green involvement.
Clear green vision refers to a system of values and symbols that
support environmental management and guides employees to engage
in environmental issues (Renwick et al., 2013). A green learning
climate and the various communication channels enable employees
to be well informed about environmental issues in their workplace. A
mutual learning climate encourages employees to be concerned about
each other's green behavior and awareness. This can create an atmo-
sphere of supervision among employees and enhance their awareness
of environmental issues. Several formal or informal communication
channels among employees can spread green culture and also
provide a comfortable context in which they can improve their
proenvironmental behaviors and awareness. Employees can be moti-
vated to participate in environmental management by offering green
activities, such as writing newsletters, developing problem‐solving
groups, or setting up green teams (Vallaster, 2017). Encouraging green
involvement involves providing employees with opportunities to
engage in quality improvement and problem solving on environmental
issues.
2.7 | Proenvironmental behavior
Employee's proenvironmental behavior has been defined as “willing-
ness to engage in proenvironmental activities” (Scherbaum, Popovich,
& Finlinson, 2008, p. 827). A number of such activities have been iden-
tified in the literature such as turning off light while out of office,
printing double side, avoiding usage of disposable cups, helping orga-
nizations to implement greening strategies, using bicycles to commute,
reducing waste, and generating new initiatives to protect the planet
from environmental degradation. Employee's proenvironmental
behavior essentially contributes to promote environmental perfor-
mance (Vicente‐Molina et al., 2013). The participation of employees
to address environmental issues and engage in proenvironmental
behaviors is considered as an effective strategy to become environ-
mentally responsible organization and enhance environmental perfor-
mance (Djellal & Gallouj, 2016; Kangasniemi, Kallio, & Pietilä, 2014).
2.8 | Green HRM practices and proenvironmental
behavior
The HRM behavioral literature suggests that HRM influences organiza-
tional performance through its effect on employee work attitudes and
behavior (Becker & Huselid, 2006). Green HRM practices stimulate
employees' responsible behaviors to preserve the environment (Cherian
& Jacob, 2012). Green HRM practices facilitate green/environmental
consciousness among employees and refine their behaviors to develop
proenvironmental attitudes in their personal and work lives. Green
HRM promotes environment friendly activities by engaging employees
in greener activities (Cincera & Krajhanzl, 2013).
Green HRM practices result in greater efficiencies, lower costs,
and create an atmosphere of better employee relationship, which in
turn helps organizations to operate in an environment friendly manner
428
(DuBois & Dubois, 2012). Green HRM practices, such as planning cor-
porate environmental management initiatives/programs/activities,
setting green targets, goals and responsibilities, making new
employees familiar with greening efforts of the organization and
encourage them to engage in green interpersonal citizenship behavior,
providing regular feedback to the employees or teams to achieve envi-
ronmental goals or improve their environmental performance, and cre-
ating opportunities to the employee to involve and participate in green
suggestion schemes, are likely to increase employee proenvironmental
cognition (Renwick et al., 2013).
Tseng et al. (2013) suggest that designing jobs and work settings
that encourage employees to learn about the environment and provid-
ing regular and frequent trainings about environmental management
systems increase an employee's concern and motivation to engage in
proenvironmental behaviors. Nishii, Lepak, and Schneider (2008)
assert that employees perceive their organization's HRM practices as
a determinant of their work attitudes and behaviors. So if an organiza-
tion incorporates greening in its HR policies, employees would display
behaviors that resonate and are in accordance with the organization's
green policies. When an organization introduces rewards for innova-
tive environmental initiative/performance, employees become moti-
vated to engage in and contribute to green activities (Renwick et al.,
2013). Green HRM within an organization affects workplace
proenvironmental behaviors among employees (Dumont et al., 2017).
As such, we developed the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1. Green HRM practices (green recruitment
and selection, green training and development, green per-
formance management and appraisal, green reward and
compensation, and green empowerment) are positively
related to employee proenvironmental behavior.
2.9 | Proenvironmental psychological climate as a
mediator
Organizational climate refers to an employee's shared perceptions and
interpretations of organizational policies, the procedures that translate
policies into guidelines, and the practices expected and rewarded by
the organization (Beermann, 2011). The behavioral HRM literature
recognizes that HRM may not directly affect employee behavior;
rather, its influence is transmitted through various underlying mecha-
nisms (Boxall, Guthrie, & Paauwe, 2016). Environmental psychologists
have acknowledged for a long time that contextual factors can affect
proenvironmental behavior (Beermann, 2011). In the field of organiza-
tional behavior, psychological climate is considered to be an important
contextual factor that might influence employees' attitudes and
behaviors. Psychological climate captures “individual perceptions of
work environment characteristics or organizations” (Burke, Borucki,
& Kaufman, 2002, p. 326). Proenvironmental psychological climate
refers to an employee's perceptions and interpretations of organiza-
tion's policies, procedures, and practices regarding environmental per-
formance (Boxall et al., 2016).
Research has consistently found that climate is strongly related to
employees' behaviors (Schneider, Ehrhart, & Macey, 2013). Within the
environmental realm, research has shown descriptive norms are linked
SAEED ET AL.
to littering, recycling, and conservation behaviors (Boxall et al., 2016).
We extend this research to the organizational context to suggest that
by forming descriptive norms through psychological climate percep-
tions, employees feel that proenvironmental behaviors are effective
and appropriate in the given context. Psychological climate has long
been recognized for its mediating role. According to Burke et al.
(2002), employees first perceive and make sense of their work envi-
ronments and then behave accordingly. Consistent with this idea, we
accord a similar mediating role to proenvironmental psychological cli-
mate to suggest that employees perceive and make sense of their
work environment characteristics by forming climate perceptions that
their organizations are environmentally friendly and, consequently,
behave in environmentally responsible ways.
Perceptions of psychological climate develop as a result of social
interactions through which employees determine the values of organi-
zational practices, policies, processes, and procedures (Beermann,
2011). Employees observe HRM practices and form perceptions about
the organizational values (Nishii et al., 2008). This cognitive process
helps employees to develop their own views about the psychological
climate of the organization. When an organization implements green
HRM practices and procedures, employees perceive organization to
be environment friendly and value its contributions towards
protecting the environment. Hence, proenvironmental psychological
climate might enhance as a result of organization's green HRM prac-
tices. A positive proenvironmental psychological climate is expected
to give a deeper understanding to employees about behaviors that
are valued and rewarded in the organization (Norton, Zacher, &
Ashkanasy, 2014). When an organization values environment and its
protection as central to its overall strategy and behaves in an environ-
ment friendly manner, it signals to employees that they are also
expected to behave in environment friendly manner.
Green HRM practices are implemented by organizations that think
beyond pure economic benefits and take into account environmental
management systems while making decisions. Such organizations
incorporate green‐related activities in employees' work environment
characteristics and devise each function of management keeping in
view greening objectives. Organizational concern for the environment
along with its efforts to contribute towards greening seeks employees
to engage in proenvironmental behaviors (Renwick et al., 2013). Chou
(2014) suggested that if organizations do not implement green policies
in their HR practices, employees would perceive their organizations to
be less socially responsible towards environment and hence their
proenvironmental psychological climate's perceptions would deterio-
rate. Therefore, organizations should try to make clear to all their stake-
holders in general and employees in particular that from panning job
design to evaluating performance, green responsibilities and commit-
ment are embedded in every function, policy, process, and procedure
of management (Manika, Wells, Gregory‐Smith, & Gentry, 2015).
Employees become aware of their roles and organizational expecta-
tions towards greening and become more involved in green activities.
Proenvironmental psychological climate is positively related to
proenvironmental behavior of employees (Norton et al., 2014). A recent
study by Norton et al. (2014) found green climate to mediate the effect
of corporate environmental policy on employees' proenvironmental
behaviors. Therefore, we developed the following hypothesis:
SAEED ET AL.
Hypothesis 2. Green HRM practices (green recruitment
and selection, green training and development, green per-
formance management and appraisal, green reward and
compensation, and green empowerment) indirectly influ-
ence employee's proenvironmental behavior through the
mediation of proenvironmental psychological climate.
2.10 | Moderating effect of environmental
knowledge
Environmental knowledge refers to the knowledge and awareness
about environmental issues and solutions (Zsóka et al., 2013).
Employee knowledge is found to affect decision making and inten-
tions. Individuals usually do not make themselves part of the situations
about which their knowledge is limited. When they do not know much
about a situation, they tend to avoid from such situation. Chan, Hon,
Chan, and Okumus (2014) found that those consumers who were
aware of environmental issues and possessed knowledge about prod-
ucts and their effects on the environment, they displayed higher pro-
pensity to spend money on green products, use organic food,
participate in greening activities, and recycle waste. An individual's
knowledge regarding environmental problems, processes, and solu-
tions increases concern and awareness to play his/her part in
protecting the environment (Zsóka et al., 2013). Environmental knowl-
edge and awareness are the most important aspects of individual envi-
ronmental awareness. Barr (2007) suggests that when an employee's
knowledge regarding waste management, environmental management
systems, and corporate green policies increases, it is likely to enhance
voluntary proenvironmental behaviors at workplace such as turning off
lights, commuting on bicycles, and avoiding usage of disposable cups.
Afsar, Badir, and Kiani (2016) found that employee's environmental
knowledge affects their intentions to engage in proenvironmental
behaviors, and emotional involvement requires a certain degree of
environmental knowledge and awareness. Figure 1 presents the
conceptual framework of this study.
Notwithstanding the evidence that the green HRM practices can
lead to proenvironmental behavior, according to its definition, green
FIGURE 1 Conceptual framework
429
HRM practices leave employees with considerable latitude. The inter-
action of environmental knowledge with green HRM practices is likely
to strengthen this relationship and increase employees' participation in
environmentally friendly behaviors (Afsar et al., 2016). The social–
psychological model of Stern, Dietz, and Kalof (1993), which was
originally based on Schwartz's (1977) norm activation model (NAM),
also assumes that for individuals to exhibit altruistic behavior, it is
essential that they have awareness about the results of performing
or not performing a behavior in terms of social harm. Indeed, based
on the NAM, some researchers agree that treating environmental
knowledge as a moderator rather than the direct effect plays a better
role in the activation process of behaving prosocially (Afsar et al.,
2016; Han, Hwang, Kim, & Jung, 2015). When employees are aware
of environmental problems, they are more likely to exhibit
proenvironmental behaviors. Finally, Schultz and his colleagues,
referring to NAM, argue that an altruistic behavior is more likely to
occur if the actor is aware of the potential harm to the valued other,
and then they finalize that “the relationship between values and
behavior is moderated by awareness of harmful consequences and
ascription of responsibility” (2005, p. 460).
Environmental knowledge can lead to understanding and incentiv-
izing individuals to behave (or refrain from behaving) in particular
ways. It can be learnt from popular media or via specific environmental
training and development resulting in greater understanding of envi-
ronmental impacts. A self‐report study of managers in China revealed
that environmental knowledge and values are predictors of personal
environmental behaviors (Fryxell & Lo, 2003). According to Cheng
and Wu (2015), if an employee possesses greater degree of knowl-
edge about the environment, he/she would exhibit proenvironmental
workplace behaviors. Green HRM practices reflect the result of
employees' judgments of the organization's proenvironmental knowl-
edge. The higher the knowledge an individual has about the environ-
ment, the greater the likelihood that the employee would engage in
conservation behaviors (Frick, Kaiser, & Wilson, 2004). Hence, individ-
ual proenvironmental knowledge will moderate the effect of green
HRM on workplace proenvironmental behavior. Therefore, we devel-
oped the following hypothesis:
430
Hypothesis 3. Environmental knowledge moderates the
effect of Green HRM practices (green recruitment and
selection, green training and development, green perfor-
mance management and appraisal, green reward and
compensation, and green empowerment) on employee's
proenvironmental behavior.
3 | METHOD
3.1 | Participants and procedure
This cross‐sectional research sought a sample‐frame of employees from
diverse industry sectors (coal generating, power industry, food, chemical,
and pharmaceutical industries). The researchers' interviews with the
general manager, the HR managers, and the environmental and safety
officer revealed that the firms had adopted a range of green HRM poli-
cies and practices. Meetings were scheduled to inform the participants
about the general purpose of the study, to emphasize confidentiality,
and to distribute questionnaires. All employees were asked to participate
in the research and received questionnaires, which were filled out during
work time and returned via the internal mail system. To minimize the
detrimental effects of method biases (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, &
Podsakoff, 2003), we introduced a separation between the measures of
the green HRM, proenvironmental psychological climate, and environ-
mental knowledge. The data were collected in two waves to alleviate
the potential common method bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003).
In the first wave survey (T1), employees provided their demo-
graphic data and the information on green HRM, proenvironmental
psychological climate, environmental knowledge, organizational size,
and organizational age. In the second wave survey (T2), conducted
3 months after T1, supervisors were asked to report on their respec-
tive subordinates' proenvironmental behaviors. Supervisors completed
a separate survey for each of their subordinates at a separate,
prearranged time slot. The researchers subsequently paired the sur-
veys by matching the corresponding employee codes on both the
employee and supervisor surveys; 456 employees participated in the
T1 survey. Questionnaires were distributed to supervisors in the T2
survey, and 347 responses were returned, including 268 (77.2%)
men and 89 (22.8%) women. In terms of length of service, 27% had
served for less than 5 years, 48% had served between 5 and 10 years,
and 25% had been in service for over 10 years; 26% were aged from
18 to 25; 24% were aged from 25 to 32, 29% were aged from 32 to
50; 21% were aged 51 and older. The sample was made up of 36.2%
managers and 64.8% employees. We tested whether participants from
different industry groups differed in terms of their proenvironmental
behaviors. We obtained aggregate scores for each participant at the
between‐persons level. Nonparametric Kruskal–Wallis tests showed
there were no significant differences between participants from differ-
ent industries (λ2 = 23.79, df = 23, p = 0.225).
3.2 | Measures
Five green HRM practices were measured using measurement scale of
Jabbour, Santos, and Nagano (2010). Total items to measure green
HRM practices were 44 (green recruitment and selection [nine items],
SAEED ET AL.
green training and development [12 items], green performance manage-
ment and appraisal [eight items], green reward and compensation [nine
items], and green empowerment [six items]). Proenvironmental psycho-
logical climate was measured using five items from Chou (2014). A sam-
ple item is “Engaging in and supporting green and sustainable initiatives
is important in this organization.” The alpha coefficient was 0.83.
Proenvironmental behavior scale questions were extracted from the
studies conducted by Kaiser, Oerke, and Bogner (2007), Robertson
and Barling (2013), and Kim, Kim, Han, and Holland (2016). Total items
to measure proenvironmental behavior were 16. Sample items include
“I print double sided whenever possible” and “I take part in environmen-
tally friendly programs.” The alpha coefficient was 0.82. Environmental
knowledge was measured using nine items from Gatersleben, Steg, and
Vlek (2002) study. The respondents self‐reported the extent of their
knowledge of global environmental issues (anchored on a five Likert
scale know nothing about it and know a lot about it). The alpha coefficient
was 0.89. Appendix A presents items of all measures.
4 | RESULTS
Confirmatory factor analysis was used to validate the developed con-
structs (green recruitment and selection, green training and develop-
ment, green performance management and appraisal, green reward
and compensation, green empowerment, proenvironmental psycho-
logical capital, environmental knowledge, and proenvironmental
behavior). In the testing model for confirmatory factor analysis, all
factor loadings were significant (p < 0.001). We evaluated model fit
according to various fit indicators, including the χ2 goodness‐of‐fit test,
nonnormed fit index (NNFI) comparative fit index (CFI), and root mean
square error of approximation (RMSEA). The results for the testing
model were χ2 = 248.33, df = 164, χ2/df = 1.51, NNFI = 0.96, CFI = 0.96,
and RMSEA = 0.063, which indicated that the model had an acceptable
standard. Composite reliability of eight variables ranged from 0.74 to
0.91, which was greater than the standard of 0.6. Similarly, the average
variance was extracted for each factor, and the value ranged from 0.43
and 0.77, which was either close to or higher than 0.5, claiming conver-
gent and discriminant validity of the questionnaire (Karatepe, 2006).
4.1 | Descriptive statistics
Table 1 presents means, standard deviations, and correlations of all key
variables. Green training correlated positively with proenvironmental
behavior (r = 0.49, p < 0.01) and proenvironmental psychological cli-
mate (r = 0.53, p < 0.001). All other green HRM practices also corre-
lated positively and significantly with proenvironmental psychological
climate and proenvironmental behavior. Table 1 shows a significant
correlation (r = 0.31, p < 0.01) between proenvironmental psychologi-
cal climate and proenvironmental behavior. This finding supports our
hypothesis that proenvironmental psychological climate correlates
positively with proenvironmental behavior.
4.2 | Hypothesis testing
Table 2 presents the results of the hierarchical regression of
proenvironmental psychological climate on demographic
SAEED ET AL. 431

TABLE 1 Descriptive statistics

S. No. Variables M (SD) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1 Age 31.74 (5.36) 1
2 Gender 0.64 (0.27) −0.11 1
3 Organizational tenure 4.58 (2.24) 0.03 −0.08 1
4 Education 2.34 (0.59) 0.02 0.04 0.04 1
5 Green recruitment and selection 4.03 (0.21) 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.03 1
6 Green training and development 3.76 (0.28) 0.16* 0.05 0.19* 0.11* 0.24* 1
7 Green performance management and 3.17 (0.31) 0.03 0.11 0.03 0.04 0.16 0.27* 1
appraisal
8 Green reward and compensation 3.84 (0.38) 0.02 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.21 0.25 0.18 1
9 Green empowerment 4.15 (0.12) 0.19* 0.13* 0.01 0.02 0.29* 0.31* 0.26* 0.34* 1
10 Proenvironmental psychological 3.79 (0.42) 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.35** 0.53*** 0.48* 0.41* 0.22** 1
climate
11 Environmental knowledge 3.56 (0.27) 0.02 0.03 0.13* 0.08 0.19* 0.22* 0.13 0.27 0.17* 0.11 1
12 Proenvironmental behavior 3.89 (0.41) 0.17* 0.07 0.07 0.22* 0.38* 0.49** 0.43* 0.31* 0.31** 0.37* 0.26* 1

*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001 (two‐tailed test).

TABLE 2 Hierarchical regression of perceived organization support on HR practices

Step 1 Step 2
Independent variables B β t B β t

Control variables
Age 0.02 0.07 0.896 0.01 0.02 0.272
Gender −0.11 −0.03 −0.547 −0.19 −0.05 −0.884
Organizational tenure 0.01 0.01 −0.007 −0.01 −0.01 −0.124
Education 0.02 0.03 0.417 0.01 0.01 0.231
Model variables
Green HRM practices
Green recruitment and selection 0.21 0.15 2.426**
Green training 0.39 0.26 2.947***
Green performance management 0.34 0.22 2.132**
Green reward and compensation 0.29 0.21 2.297*
Green empowerment 0.24 0.18 2.165**
Regression statistics
Intercept 3.22 3.239*** 0.79 0.913
R 0.15 0.56
F (df) regression 0.462 (6, 338) 9.342** (9, 335)
Adj. R 2
−0.03 0.27
ΔR2 0.01 0.29
F (df) of ΔR2 0.462 (6, 338) 14.895** (5, 327)

*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.

characteristics and green HRM practices. Step one of the analysis
shows that participant demographics have no significant relationship
to proenvironmental psychological climate. Step 2, however, produced
a significant R2 change, ΔR2 = 0.29, F (5, 327) = 14.895, p < 0.01,
when the green HRM practices variables were entered. Each of the
green HRM practices was significant in predicting proenvironmental
psychological capital. Green training showed the strongest relationship
to proenvironmental psychological capital (β = 0.26; t = 2.947;
p < 0.001) followed by green performance management (β = 0.22;
t = 2.132; p < 0.01), green reward and compensation (β = 0.21;
t = 2.297; p < 0.05), green empowerment (β = 0.18; t = 2.165; p < 0.01),
and green recruitment and selection (β = 0.15; t = 2.426; p < 0.01).
We also explored the possibility that green HRM practices might
interact in predicting proenvironmental psychological climate. We
conducted a hierarchical regression testing for two‐way, three‐way,
and four‐way interactions on proenvironmental psychological climate.
None of these interactions was significant. It appears that the green
HRM practices we investigated have only an additive effect on
proenvironmental psychological climate. We conducted a mediation
analysis using a bootstrap method recommended by Hayes and
Preacher (2014). Table 3 shows the decomposition of the effects of
green HRM practices on proenvironmental behavior into direct causal
effects and indirect causal effects operating through proenvironmental
psychological capital using a bootstrap analysis technique
432
TABLE 3 Decomposition of causal effects of green HRM practices and proenvironmental psychological climate predicting proenvironmental
behavior
Total effect on
Independent variables proenvironmental behavior
Green recruitment and selection 0.13**
Green training 0.23*
Green performance management 0.18**
Green reward and compensation 0.19***
Green empowerment 0.15*
Proenvironmental psychological climate
Note. Table entries are unstandardized B weights obtained from bootstrap analysis. HRM: human resource management.
*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.
(Hayes & Preacher, 2014). The total effects shown in Table 3 are the
unstandardized B weights obtained for the green HRM practices when
they were first introduced into the equation predicting
proenvironmental behavior.
The direct effects of the green HRM practices on
proenvironmental behavior are the unstandardized β weights obtained
for these variables when proenvironmental psychological capital was
entered into the equation. Finally, the indirect effects of the green
HRM practices on proenvironmental behavior operating through
proenvironmental psychological capital were computed as the differ-
ence between the total effect and the direct effect of the green
HRM practice. Indirect effects for the independent variables with sig-
nificant total effects are considered significant if their 95% confidence
interval does not include 0.
Table 3 shows that each green HRM practice has both direct and
indirect effects on proenvironmental behavior. Green recruitment and
selection exert 31% of its effect indirectly through proenvironmental
psychological capital, whereas 69% of its effect is direct. Green
training practices exert 39% of its effect indirectly through
proenvironmental psychological capital and 61% of its effect directly
on proenvironmental behavior. Green performance management prac-
tices exert 38% of its effect indirectly through proenvironmental psy-
chological capital and 62% of its effect directly on proenvironmental
behavior. Green empowerment practices exert 47% of its effect
indirectly through proenvironmental psychological capital and 53%
of its effect directly on proenvironmental behavior.
Green reward and compensation practices exert 16% of its effect
indirectly through proenvironmental psychological capital and 84% of
its effect directly on proenvironmental behavior. When the indirect
effects of green reward and compensation practices were separated
from its direct effects, neither variance component reached signifi-
cance, but its direct effect approached significance (B = 0.16,
p < 0.05). Proenvironmental psychological capital demonstrated a
direct effect on proenvironmental behavior (B = 0.34, p < 0.001), again
demonstrating support for mediating effect.
The interaction patterns of green HRM practices and environmen-
tal knowledge were estimated by testing the relationship between
green HRM practices (green recruitment and selection, green training
and development, green performance management and compensation,
green reward and compensation, and green empowerment) and
employee proenvironmental behavior at high (1 SD above the mean)
and low (1 SD below the mean) values of the moderator (Dawson &
SAEED ET AL.
Indirect effect through proenvironmental Direct effect on
psychological climate proenvironmental behavior
0.04 0.09
0.09 0.14
0.07 0.11
0.03 0.16
0.07 0.08
0.34***
Richter, 2006). Simple slope tests were run following Preacher, Curran,
and Bauer (2006) procedure. The interaction term of Green Recruit-
ment and Selection × Environmental Knowledge was positive and sig-
nificant (γ = 0.11, p < 0.05; see Table 4). The interaction terms of green
empowerment (γ = 0.26, p < 0.01), green reward and compensation
(γ = 0.21, p < 0.01), green performance management (γ = 0.15,
p < 0.05), and green training and development (γ = 0.17, p < 0.01), with
environmental knowledge were positive and significant, supporting
the moderating effect of environmental knowledge.
5 | DISCUSSION
In the present research, we developed and tested a model in which
green HRM practices were positively related to employees'
proenvironmental behaviors, and proenvironmental psychological cli-
mate mediates and environmental knowledge moderates the relation-
ship between green HRM practices (green recruitment and selection,
green training and development, green performance management and
appraisal, green reward and compensation, and green empowerment)
and proenvironmental behavior. The hypothesized model was sup-
ported by the generated findings of the study. Green HRM practices
positively affected employees' proenvironmental behaviors. This find-
ing was in line with the findings of Dumont et al. (2017) showing how
proenvironmental behavior of employees was improved in companies
with green HRM practices. Because proenvironmental behavior is not
officially appraised and rewarded, these behaviors are principally
influenced by individual perceptions of organizational green climate
resulting from the adoption of, rather than influenced directly by,
green HRM practices. The past few years have witnessed growing
academic interest in HRM's role in environmental management (Jack-
son & Seo, 2010; Renwick et al., 2013). The present results showed
that green HRM has an indirect impact, through proenvironmental
psychological climate, on proenvironmental behavior. Despite the
conceptual linkages between green HRM and proenvironmental
behavior, insufficient empirical evidence addresses this association.
This study makes several theoretical contributions. First, this
article investigates the factors that drive employees' intentions to
participate in green practices, which are highly important to the
success of environmental programs (Chan et al., 2014). It also
extends the limited literature on employees' motivation related to
proenvironmental behavior (Kim et al., 2016). Second, this paper adds
SAEED ET AL. 433

TABLE 4 Moderation results

Proenvironmental behavior
Variables β t β t β t
Step 1
Age 0.02 0.65 0.01 0.46 0.02 0.62
Education 0.04 1.29 0.03 1.31 0.03 1.37
Gender 0.01 0.48 0.02 0.42 0.03 0.52
Organizational tenure 0.05 0.63 0.03 0.91 0.03 0.85
Step 2
Green recruitment and selection 0.16*** 4.33 0.02 2.12
Green training 0.23** 5.57 0.08 2.42
Green performance management 0.22*** 5.11 0.11 2.07
Green reward and compensation 0.28** 5.32 0.04 2.26
Green empowerment 0.31** 5.94 0.06 3.75
Environmental knowledge 0.18** 3.58 −0.08 −1.77
Step 3
Green recruitment and selection × Environmental knowledge 0.11* 2.54
Green training and development × Environmental knowledge 0.17** 3.06
Green performance management × Environmental knowledge 0.15* 3.14
Green reward and compensation × Environmental knowledge 0.21** 3.41
Green empowerment × Environmental knowledge 0.26** 3.74
F 6.538*** 17.058* 14.887*
R2 at each step 0.08 0.35 0.39
ΔR2 0.27 0.04

*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.

to the knowledge about employees' proenvironmental behaviors, an
area that requires further attention (Dumont et al., 2017). Third, it
explores the impact of green HRM practices on individuals'
proenvironmental behavior, which has received little attention. The
green HRM narrative is still in its infancy with inferences about its
effect on employee workplace outcomes (Dumont et al., 2017).
Fourth, proenvironmental psychological climate, which has recently
attracted considerable attention in environmental psychology litera-
ture, needs more investigation in organizational settings (Dumont
et al., 2017). Fifth, environmental knowledge and awareness is found
to affect employee's intentions to implement proenvironmental
practices (Safari, Salehzadeh, Panahi, & Abolghasemian, 2018), but
this study explores how environmental knowledge and awareness
moderates the effect of green HRM practices on employee's
proenvironmental behaviors.
5.1 | Practical implications
This study has significant implications for managers promoting
proenvironmental behaviors. Initially, green HRM practices should
be integrated into the organization's long‐term strategy for
sustainable growth. If organizations wish to encourage environmental
behaviors at the individual level, they may benefit from implementing
HRM practices directed towards the environment. A growing
number of researchers (e.g., Dumont et al., 2017; Guerci, Longoni, &
Luzzini, 2016; Khan, Rasli, & Qureshi, 2017; Nejati, Rabiei, & Jabbour,
2017) have suggested that organizations should adopt green HRM
practices to effectively and successfully implement organizational
green policies.
Organizations should incorporate environment friendly behavior
and commitment in their HRM practices. The management should
include environment concern in job description and job design and
recruitment messages should have environmental criteria. During
interviews, candidates can be asked environment‐related questions
to know their level of environmental knowledge, awareness, concern,
and commitment. Moreover, employees must know their specific
green targets, goals, and responsibilities. By incorporating corporate
environmental management objectives and targets with the
performance evaluation system, providing regular feedback to the
employees to achieve environmental goals or improve their environ-
mental performance and including environmental performance as a
performance indicator during evaluation, organizations can improve
performance management systems. Another critical aspect to consider
is green training and development. Providing environmental training to
every employee to increase their concern and commitment towards
protecting environment is paramount to foster proenvironmental
attitudes and behaviors among employees. Organizations should
conduct training needs analyses to identify green training needs of
employees. Financial and nonfinancial rewards for employees who
displayed good environmental performance would motivate other
employees to engage in proenvironmental behaviors. Providing
opportunities to involve and participate in green suggestion schemes
and joint consultations for environmental issues problem solving
may also prove effective in enhancing proenvironmental behaviors
among employees.
434
5.2 | Research limitations and further research
directions
The present study is not without limitations. First, the data collected
could be subject to self‐report method bias, which could result in
potential CMV. The results from Harman's ex post one‐factor test
showed that the first factor accounted for only 29l.47% of the total
66.31% variance indicated. Thus, CMV was not found to be a serious
problem inhibiting the adequate testing of the hypotheses and
interpretation of results. However, future research should use more
objectives measures of proenvironmental behavior. Second, green
HRM practices influence employee proenvironmental behaviors
through underlying mechanisms. Future research should look into
other mediators (e.g., green commitment, job satisfaction, and green
lifestyle) and moderators (e.g., environmental consciousness and green
self‐efficacy) to further explain the effect of green HRM practices on
proenvironmental behaviors.
ORCID
Bilal Bin Saeed http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8255-7846
Bilal Afsar http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7718-0690
RE FE R ENC E S
Afsar, B., Badir, Y., & Kiani, U. S. (2016). Linking spiritual leadership and
employee pro‐environmental behavior: The influence of workplace
spirituality, intrinsic motivation, and environmental passion. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 45, 79–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jenvp.2015.11.011
Ardito, L., & Dangelico, R. M. (2018). Firm environmental performance
under scrutiny: The role of strategic and organizational orientations.
Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 25,
426–440. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1470
Babiak, K., & Trendafilova, S. (2011). CSR and environmental responsibility:
Motives and pressures to adopt green management practices. Corpo-
rate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 18(1), 11–24.
https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.229
Barr, S. (2007). Factors influencing environmental attitudes and
behaviors: A UK case study of household waste management.
Environment and Behavior, 39(4), 435–473. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0013916505283421
Baumgartner, R. J., & Winter, T. (2014). The sustainability manager: A tool
for education and training on sustainability management. Corporate
Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 21(3), 167–174.
https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1313
Becker, B. E., & Huselid, M. A. (2006). Strategic human resources manage-
ment: Where do we go from here? Journal of Management, 32(6),
898–925. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206306293668
Beermann, M. (2011). Linking corporate climate adaptation strategies with
resilience thinking. Journal of Cleaner Production, 19(8), 836–842.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.10.017
Blok, V., Wesselink, R., Studynka, O., & Kemp, R. (2015). Encouraging
sustainability in the workplace: A survey on the pro‐environmental
behaviour of university employees. Journal of Cleaner Production, 106,
55–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.07.063
Boxall, P., Guthrie, J. P., & Paauwe, J. (2016). Editorial introduction:
Progressing our understanding of the mediating variables linking
HRM, employee well‐being and organisational performance. Human
Resource Management Journal, 26(2), 103–111. https://doi.org/
10.1111/1748‐8583.12104
Burke, M. J., Borucki, C. C., & Kaufman, J. D. (2002). Contemporary
perspectives on the study of psychological climate: A commentary.
SAEED ET AL.
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 11(3),
325–340. https://doi.org/10.1080/13594320244000210
Chan, E. S., Hon, A. H., Chan, W., & Okumus, F. (2014). What drives
employees' intentions to implement green practices in hotels? The role
of knowledge, awareness, concern and ecological behaviour. Interna-
tional Journal of Hospitality Management, 40, 20–28. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijhm.2014.03.001
Cheng, T. M., & Wu, H. C. (2015). How do environmental knowledge, envi-
ronmental sensitivity, and place attachment affect environmentally
responsible behavior? An integrated approach for sustainable island
tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 23(4), 557–576. https://doi.
org/10.1080/09669582.2014.965177
Cherian, J., & Jacob, J. (2012). Green marketing: A study of consumers' atti-
tude towards environment friendly products. Asian Social Science, 8(12),
117–132.
Chou, C. J. (2014). Hotels' environmental policies and employee personal
environmental beliefs: Interactions and outcomes. Tourism Manage-
ment, 40, 436–446. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2013.08.001
Cincera, J., & Krajhanzl, J. (2013). Eco‐schools: What factors influence
pupils' action competence for pro‐environmental behaviour? Journal
of Cleaner Production, 61, 117–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2013.06.030
Dawson, J. F., & Richter, A. W. (2006). Probing three‐way interactions in
moderated multiple regression: Development and application of a slope
difference test. Journal of applied psychology, 91(4), 917–926.
Dias‐Sardinha, I., & Reijnders, L. (2001). Environmental performance
evaluation and sustainability performance evaluation of organizations:
An evolutionary framework. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environ-
mental Management, 8(2), 71–79.
Djellal, F., & Gallouj, F. (2016). Service innovation for sustainability: Paths
for greening through service innovation. In Service innovation
(pp. 187–215). Tokyo: Springer.
DuBois, C. L., & Dubois, D. A. (2012). Strategic HRM as social design for
environmental sustainability in organization. Human Resource Manage-
ment, 51(6), 799–826. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21504
Dumont, J., Shen, J., & Deng, X. (2017). Effects of green HRM practices on
employee workplace green behavior: The role of pro‐environmental
psychological climate and employee green values. Human Resource
Management, 56(4), 613–627. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21792
Evangelinos, K., Nikolaou, I., & Leal Filho, W. (2015). The effects of climate
change policy on the business community: A corporate environmental
accounting perspective. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmen-
tal Management, 22(5), 257–270. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1342
Frick, J., Kaiser, F. G., & Wilson, M. (2004). Environmental knowledge and
conservation behavior: Exploring prevalence and structure in a
representative sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 37(8),
1597–1613. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2004.02.015
Fryxell, G. E., & Lo, C. W. (2003). The influence of environmental knowledge
and values on managerial behaviours on behalf of the environment: An
empirical examination of managers in China. Journal of Business Ethics,
46(1), 45–69. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024773012398
Gatersleben, B., Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2002). Measurement and determinants
of environmentally significant consumer behavior. Environment and
Behavior, 34(3), 335–362. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916502034
003004
Guerci, M., Longoni, A., & Luzzini, D. (2016). Translating stakeholder pres-
sures into environmental performance–the mediating role of green
HRM practices. The International Journal of Human Resource Manage-
ment, 27(2), 262–289. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2015.
1065431
Guziana, B., & Dobers, P. (2013). How sustainability leaders communicate
corporate activities of sustainable development. Corporate Social
Responsibility and Environmental Management, 20(4), 193–204.
https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1292
Han, H., Hwang, J., Kim, J., & Jung, H. (2015). Guests' pro‐environmental
decision‐making process: Broadening the norm activation framework
SAEED ET AL.
in a lodging context. International Journal of Hospitality Management,
47, 96–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2015.03.013
Haque, F. (2017). The effects of board characteristics and sustainable
compensation policy on carbon performance of UK firms. The British
Accounting Review, 49(3), 347–364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
bar.2017.01.001
Hayes, A. F., & Preacher, K. J. (2014). Statistical mediation analysis with a
multicategorical independent variable. British Journal of Mathematical
and Statistical Psychology, 67(3), 451–470. https://doi.org/10.1111/
bmsp.12028
Hermann, B. G., Kroeze, C., & Jawjit, W. (2007). Assessing environmental
performance by combining life cycle assessment, multi‐criteria
analysis and environmental performance indicators. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 15(18), 1787–1796. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2006.04.004
Jabbour, C. (2011). How green are HRM practices, organizational culture,
learning and teamwork? A Brazilian study. Industrial and Commercial
Training, 43(2), 98–105. https://doi.org/10.1108/00197851111108926
Jabbour, C. J. C., de Sousa Jabbour, A. B. L., Govindan, K., Teixeira, A. A., &
de Souza Freitas, W. R. (2013). Environmental management and
operational performance in automotive companies in Brazil: The role
of human resource management and lean manufacturing. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 47, 129–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2012.07.010
Jabbour, C. J. C., & Santos, F. C. A. (2008). Relationships between human
resource dimensions and environmental management in companies:
Proposal of a model. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16(1), 51–58.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2006.07.025
Jabbour, C. J. C., Santos, F. C. A., & Nagano, M. S. (2008). Environmental
management system and human resource practices: Is there a link
between them in four Brazilian companies? Journal of Cleaner
Production, 16(17), 1922–1925. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.
2008.02.004
Jabbour, C. J. C., Santos, F. C. A., & Nagano, M. S. (2010). Contributions of
HRM throughout the stages of environmental management: Methodo-
logical triangulation applied to companies in Brazil. The International
Journal of Human Resource Management, 21(7), 1049–1089. https://
doi.org/10.1080/09585191003783512
Jackson, S. E., Renwick, D. W., Jabbour, C. J., & Muller‐Camen, M. (2011).
State‐of‐the‐art and future directions for green human resource man-
agement: Introduction to the special issue. German Journal of Human
Resource Management, 25(2), 99–116. https://doi.org/10.1177/
239700221102500203
Jackson, S. E., & Seo, J. (2010). The greening of strategic HRM scholarship.
Organization Management Journal, 7(4), 278–290. https://doi.org/
10.1057/omj.2010.37
Jasch, C. (2000). Environmental performance evaluation and indicators.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 8(1), 79–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0959‐6526(99)00235‐8
Kaiser, F. G., Oerke, B., & Bogner, F. X. (2007). Behavior‐based environ-
mental attitude: Development of an instrument for adolescents.
Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27(3), 242–251. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jenvp.2007.06.004
Kangasniemi, M., Kallio, H., & Pietilä, A. M. (2014). Towards environmen-
tally responsible nursing: a critical interpretive synthesis. Journal of
Advanced Nursing, 70(7), 1465–1478. https://doi.org/10.1111/
jan.12347
Karatepe, O. M. (2006). Customer complaints and organizational
responses: The effects of complaints’ perceptions of justice on satisfac-
tion and loyalty. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 25(1),
69–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2004.12.008
Khan, N. U., Rasli, A. M., & Qureshi, M. I. (2017). Greening Human
Resource Management: A Review Policies and Practices. Advanced
Science Letters, 23(9), 8934–8938. https://doi.org/10.1166/asl.
2017.9998
435
Kim, S. H., Kim, M., Han, H. S., & Holland, S. (2016). The determinants of
hospitality employees' pro‐environmental behaviors: The moderating
role of generational differences. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 52, 56–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2015.09.013
Kjaerheim, G. (2005). Cleaner production and sustainability. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 13(4), 329–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959‐
6526(03)00119‐7
Kuo, L., Yeh, C. C., & Yu, H. C. (2012). Disclosure of corporate social
responsibility and environmental management: Evidence from China.
Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 19(5),
273–287. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.274
Li, X., Frenkel, S. J., & Sanders, K. (2011). Strategic HRM as process: How
HR system and organizational climate strength influence
Chinese employee attitudes. The International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 22(9), 1825–1842. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09585192.2011.573965
Lülfs, R., & Hahn, R. (2013). Corporate greening beyond formal programs,
initiatives, and systems: A conceptual model for voluntary pro‐environ-
mental behavior of employees. European Management Review, 10(2),
83–98. https://doi.org/10.1111/emre.12008
Manika, D., Wells, V. K., Gregory‐Smith, D., & Gentry, M. (2015). The
impact of individual attitudinal and organisational variables on work-
place environmentally friendly behaviours. Journal of Business Ethics,
126(4), 663–684. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551‐013‐1978‐6
Mishra, P. (2017). Green human resource management: A framework for
sustainable organizational development in an emerging economy. Inter-
national Journal of Organizational Analysis, 25(5), 762–788. https://doi.
org/10.1108/IJOA‐11‐2016‐1079
Nejati, M., Rabiei, S., & Jabbour, C. J. C. (2017). Envisioning the invisible:
Understanding the synergy between green human resource manage-
ment and green supply chain management in manufacturing firms in
Iran in light of the moderating effect of employees' resistance to
change. Journal of Cleaner Production, 168, 163–172. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.08.213
Nishii, L. H., 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744‐6570.2008.00121.x
Norton, T. A., Parker, S. L., Zacher, H., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2015).
Employee green behavior: A theoretical framework, multilevel review,
and future research agenda. Organization & Environment, 28(1),
103–125. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026615575773
Norton, T. A., Zacher, H., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2014). Organisational sus-
tainability policies and employee green behaviour: The mediating role
of work climate perceptions. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 38,
49–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.12.008
Opatha, H. H. D. N. P., & Arulrajah, A. A. (2014). Green human resource
management: Simplified general reflections. International Business
Research, 7(8), 101.
Paillé, P., Chen, Y., Boiral, O., & Jin, J. (2014). The impact of human
resource management on environmental performance: An employee‐
level study. Journal of Business Ethics, 121(3), 451–466. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10551‐013‐1732‐0
Perron, G. M., Côté, R. P., & Duffy, J. F. (2006). Improving environmental
awareness training in business. Journal of Cleaner Production, 14(6–7),
551–562. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2005.07.006
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003).
Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of
the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of applied psychol-
ogy, 88(5), 879–903.
Preacher, K. J., Curran, P. J., & Bauer, D. J. (2006). Computational tools for
probing interactions in multiple linear regression, multilevel modeling,
and latent curve analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statis-
tics, 31(4), 437–448. https://doi.org/10.3102/10769986031004437
Provasnek, A. K., Sentic, A., & Schmid, E. (2017). Integrating eco‐
innovations and stakeholder engagement for sustainable development
436 SAEED ET AL.

and a social license to operate. Corporate Social Responsibility and Yusoff, Y. M., & Nejati, M. (2017). A Conceptual Model of Green HRM
Environmental Management, 24, 173–185. https://doi.org/10.1002/ Adoption Towards Sustainability in Hospitality Industry. In Driving Green
csr.1406 Consumerism Through Strategic Sustainability Marketing. IGI Global.
Renwick, D., Redman, T., & Maguire, S. (2008). Green HRM: A review, pro-
Zibarras, L. D., & Coan, P. (2015). HRM practices used to promote
cess model, and research agenda. University of Sheffield Management
pro‐environmental behavior: A UK survey. The International Journal of
School Discussion Paper, 1, 1–46.
Human Resource Management, 26(16), 2121–2142. https://doi.org/
Renwick, D. W., Redman, T., & Maguire, S. (2013). Green human resource 10.1080/09585192.2014.972429
management: A review and research agenda. International Journal of
Management Reviews, 15(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468‐ Zsóka, Á., Szerényi, Z. M., Széchy, A., & Kocsis, T. (2013). Greening due to
2370.2011.00328.x environmental education? Environmental knowledge, attitudes,
consumer behavior and everyday pro‐environmental activities of
Robertson, J. L., & Barling, J. (2013). Greening organizations through
Hungarian high school and university students. Journal of Cleaner Pro-
leaders' influence on employees' pro‐environmental behaviors. Journal
duction, 48, 126–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.11.030
of Organizational Behavior, 34(2), 176–194. https://doi.org/10.1002/
job.1820
Safari, A., Salehzadeh, R., Panahi, R., & Abolghasemian, S. (2018). Multiple
How to cite this article: Saeed BB, Afsar B, Hafeez S, Khan I,
pathways linking environmental knowledge and awareness to
employees' green behavior. Corporate Governance: The International Tahir M, Afridi MA. Promoting employee's proenvironmental
Journal of Business in Society, 18, 81–103. https://doi.org/10.1108/ behavior through green human resource management
CG‐08‐2016‐0168
practices. Corp Soc Resp Env Ma. 2019;26:424–438. https://
Sammalisto, K., & Brorson, T. (2008). Training and communication in the doi.org/10.1002/csr.1694
implementation of environmental management systems (ISO 14001):
A case study at the University of Gävle, Sweden. Journal of Cleaner Pro-
duction, 16(3), 299–309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2006.07.029
Scherbaum, C. A., Popovich, P. M., & Finlinson, S. (2008). Exploring individ-
ual‐level factors related to employee energy‐conservation behaviors at APPENDIX A
work. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38(3), 818–835. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1559‐1816.2007.00328.x
SCALE ITEMS
Schneider, B., Ehrhart, M. G., & Macey, W. H. (2013). Organizational
climate and culture. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 361–388. Green HRM practices
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev‐psych‐113011‐143809
Schultz, P. W., Gouveia, V. V., Cameron, L. D., Tankha, G., Schmuck, P., & Green recruitment and selection
Franěk, M. (2005). Values and their relationship to environmental 1. In my organization, job description specification includes
concern and conservation behavior. Journal of Cross‐cultural Psychology, environmental concerns.
36(4), 457–475. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022105275962
2. My organization selects applicants who are sufficiently aware of
Schwartz, S. H. (1977). Normative influences on altruism. In L. Berkowitz
(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (ed., Vol. 10) (pp. greening to fill job vacancies.
221–279). San Diego: Academic Press. 3. Recruitment messages include environmental behavior/
Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., & Kalof, L. (1993). Value orientations, gender, and commitment criteria.
environmental concern. Environment and Behavior, 25(5), 322–348.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916593255002 4. In this organization, job positions are designed that focus

Sugita, M., & Takahashi, T. (2015). Influence of corporate culture on envi- exclusively on environmental management aspects of the
ronmental management performance: An empirical study of Japanese organizations.
firms. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management,
5. My organization indicates or makes transparent its environmental
22(3), 182–192. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1346
performance (past and current) in recruitment messages.
Tang, G., Chen, Y., Jiang, Y., Paillé, P., & Jia, J. (2018). Green human
resource management practices: Scale development and validity. Asia 6. My organization includes environmental criteria in the recruit-
Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 56(1), 31–55. https://doi.org/ ment messages.
10.1111/1744‐7941.12147
7. My organization expresses the preference to recruit candidates
Tseng, M. L., Tan, R. R., & Siriban‐Manalang, A. B. (2013). Sustainable con-
sumption and production for Asia: Sustainability through green design who have competency and attitudes to participate in corporate
and practice. Journal of Cleaner Production, 40, 1–5. https://doi.org/ environmental management initiatives too in the recruitment
10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.07.015 message.
Vallaster, C. (2017). Managing a company crisis through strategic corporate
8. This organization considers candidates' environmental concern
social responsibility: A practice‐based analysis. Corporate Social Respon-
sibility and Environmental Management, 24(6), 509–523. https://doi. and interest as selection criteria.
org/10.1002/csr.1424
9. When interviewing candidates or evaluating them for selection,
Veleva, V., & Ellenbecker, M. (2001). Indicators of sustainable production: my organization asks environment‐related questions.
Framework and methodology. Journal of Cleaner Production, 9(6),
519–549. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959‐6526(01)00010‐5
Vicente‐Molina, M. A., Fernández‐Sáinz, A., & Izagirre‐Olaizola, J. (2013).
Environmental knowledge and other variables affecting pro‐
Green performance management and appraisal
environmental behaviour: Comparison of university students from
emerging and advanced countries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 61, 1. Employees know their specific green targets, goals and
130–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.05.015 responsibilities.
SAEED ET AL.
2. Environmental behavior/targets and contributions to environ-
mental management are assessed and included in performance
indicators/appraisal and recorded.
3. This organization provides regular feedback to the employees or
teams to achieve environmental goals or improve their environ-
mental performance.
4. This organization establishes environmental management
information system and environmental audits.
5. This organization incorporates corporate environmental
management objectives and targets with the performance
evaluation system.
6. This organization integrates green criteria in appraisals or evaluating
employee's job performance according to green‐related criteria.
7. Includes a separate component for progress on greening in the
performance feedback interview.
8. This organization introduces or formally evaluates all employees'
green job performance (as far as possible).
Green training and development
1. Providing environmental training to the organizational members
to increase environmental awareness.
2. Takes into account the needs of environmental issues when
training requirement are analyzed.
3. All training materials are available online for employee to reduce
paper cost.
4. Environmental training is a priority when compared to other
types of company training.
5. Providing environmental training to the organizational members
(employees and managers) to develop required skills and
knowledge.
6. Providing training to learn or adapt environmental friendly best
practices (e.g., reducing long‐distance business travel and
recycling).
7. Providing environmental awareness training to
environmental awareness among the workforce.
8. Providing environmental education to the workforce.
9. Providing training to the staff to produce green analysis of
workspace.
10. Applying of job rotation to train green managers of the future.
11. Conducting training needs analyses to identify green training
needs of employees.
12. Providing opportunities to everybody to be trained on
environmental management aspects.
Green reward and compensation
1. The company offers a nonmonetary and monetary rewards based
on the environmental achievements (sabbatical, leave, gifts,
bonuses, cash, premiums, promotion.
437
2. Environmental performance is recognized publically (awards,
dinner, and publicity).
3. Rewarding employee environmental performance (good/excellent
and extraordinary).
4. Financially rewarding for employee good environmental
performance.
5. Nonfinancially rewarding for employee good environmental
performance.
6. Introducing rewards for innovative environmental initiative/
performance.
7. Communicating employee environmental excellence.
8. Providing incentives to encourage environmentally friendly
activities and behaviors (e.g., recycling and waste management).
9. Rewarding for green skills acquisition.
Green empowerment
1. Recognizing employee as a key stakeholder in environmental
management.
2. Providing opportunities to negotiate with management about
green workplace agreement.
3. Introducing green whistle‐blowing and help‐lines.
4. Providing opportunities to the employee to involve and
participate in green suggestion schemes and joint consultations
for environmental issues problem solving.
5. Offering workshops or forums for staff to improve environmental
behavior and exchange their tacit knowledge.
6. Involving employee in formulating environmental strategy.
Environmental knowledge
1. I know about the problem of environmental pollution caused by
chemicals.
2. I have a good knowledge about the environmental issues.
create 3. I can see with my own eyes that the environment is deteriorating.
4. I am aware of how to protect the environment from pollution.
5. I am aware about climate change.
6. I know what is clean energy and how to promote it.
7. I have knowledge of landfill waste and its hazards.
8. I am aware about unsustainable consumption.
9. I know about land degradation and ways to stop it.
Proenvironmental behavior
1. In an effort to increase my organization's environmental
performance, I make suggestions and bring new ideas
about environmentally friendly practices to environmental
committees.
2. At work, I take part in environmentally friendly programs.
3. I share my knowledge about the environment with co‐workers.
438 SAEED ET AL.

4. I suggest new practices that could improve the environmental 14. I fulfill responsibilities specified in my job description in
performance of my organization. environmentally friendly ways.
5. At work, I question practices that are likely to hurt the 15. I perform tasks that are expected of me in environmentally
environment. friendly ways.

6. In my work, I weigh the consequences of my actions before
doing something that could affect the environment.
7. At work, I perform environmental tasks that are not required by
my company.
8. At work, I avoid wasting resources such as electricity or water.
9. At work, I take stairs instead of elevators to save energy.
10. At work, I turn off lights when out of office.
11. I print double sided whenever possible.
12. At work, I recycle (e.g., paper, cans, batteries, oil).
16. Compared to others at my work, I minimize and recycle waste.
Proenvironmental psychological climate
1. Engaging in and supporting green and sustainable initiatives is
important in this organization.
2. Saving energy is important.
3. Saving water is pivotal.
4. Reduction in the use of disposable products is critical.

13. I adequately complete assigned duties in environmentally 5. Waste reduction and the control of harmful materials mean a lot
friendly ways. to this organization.

View publication stats