GHRM Paper Jan 20 2023

Research Article
Green Human South Asian Journal of Human Resources

Management
Resource Management © The Author(s) 2023
1–33
and Employee Green Reprints and permissions:

https://doi.org/10.1177/23220937221144361
in.sagepub.com/journals-permissions-india
Behaviour: Participation DOI: 10.1177/23220937221144361
journals.sagepub.com/home/hrm
and Involvement,
and Training and
Development as
Moderators
Udhayageetha Veerasamy1, Michael Sammanasu Joseph2

and Satyanarayana Parayitam3
Abstract
The current study is aimed at exploring the effect of Green Human Resource
Management (GHRM) practices on employee green behaviour (EGB). We
conducted this research in the context of one of the countries in the South
Asian sub-continent, India. First, we developed a conceptual model based on
the ability, motivation, and opportunity (AMO) framework and Social Identity
Theory (SIT). Then, we tested the model with data collected from 191 faculty
members in higher educational institutions in southern India. We first checked
the instrument’s psychometric properties and tested the hypotheses using
hierarchical regression. The results indicate that: (a) green recruitment strategies
(GRS), green institutional initiatives (GII), and green performance management
and appraisal (GPMA) positively impact EGB; and (b) EGB is positively related
to employee green compensation and rewards (EGCR). The results also reveal
that employee green participation and involvement (EGPI) and employee green
training and development (EGTD) moderate the relationship between GRS,
1 Doctoral Candidate, Department of Management studies, St Joseph’s College (Autonomous),

(Affiliated to Bharathidasan University), Tiruchirappalli, Tamil Nadu, India
2 Associate Professor, Department of Management studies, St Joseph’s College (Autonomous),
(Affiliated to Bharathidasan University), Tiruchirappalli, Tamil Nadu, India

3 Professor, Department of Management and Marketing, Charlton College of Business, University of
Massachusetts Dartmouth, Massachusetts, USA
Corresponding author:
Satyanarayana Parayitam, Department of Management and Marketing, Charlton College of
Business, University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, 285 Old Westport Road, North Dartmouth,
Massachusetts 02747, USA.
E-mail: sparayitam@umassd.edu
2 South Asian Journal of Human Resources Management
GII, GPMA, and EGB. The motivation stems from the need for present-day
organisations to focus on a green environment and contribute to sustainability.
The role of GHRM practices in stimulating employees to exhibit green behaviour
is highlighted. The implications for GHRM theory and practice are discussed.
Keywords
Green human resource management, green training and development, green
recruitment strategies, employee green behaviour
Submitted: 26 May 2022; revised 1: 21 September 2022; revised 2:

1 November 2022; accepted: 18 November 2022
Introduction
Recent years have witnessed increasing attention by researchers to find ways to
prevent environmental degradation and maintain ecological sustainability
(Benevene & Buonomo, 2020; Kim et al., 2017; Shafaei et al., 2020; Singh et al.,
2020). The seminal work by Elkington (1997) on the triple-bottom-line (people,
profits and planet) has resulted in the exponential growth of research on sustainable
production, consumption, and individuals’ and organisations’ responsibility
toward the environment (Chen et al., 2019; Pereira & Martins, 2021; Zhou et al.,
2018). One significant aftermath of the contemporary research is the concept of
‘going green’ on several fronts. The term ‘green’ has become a catchphrase, and
researchers have been focusing on green consumption (Haws et al., 2014; Tezer &
Bodur, 2020), ‘green innovation’ (Song et al., 2020), green behaviour (Chaudhary,
2020; Davis et al., 2020; Pham et al., 2019), green investment (Doval & Negulescu,
2014; Heinkel et al., 2001; Sharma et al., 2020), green organisational citizenship
behaviour (Anwar et al., 2020; Pham et al., 2019), green-related creativity (Awan
et al., 2019; Maitlo et al., 2022).
Realising the importance of environmental awareness, researchers have
emphasised the role of human resource management as a tool for bringing a ‘green
organisation’ that will positively impact individuals, society, and the environment.
Thus, focusing on sustainability dimensions (environmental, economic and
social), a new stream of research called ‘Green Human Resource Management’
(GHRM) has emerged (Fawehinmi et al., 2020; Ren et al., 2018; Renwick et al.,
2013; Wehrmeyer, 2017). As Jabbour posits, ‘Green HRM is concerned with the
systemic, planned alignment of typical human resource management practices
with the organisation’s environmental goals’ (Jabbour, 2013, pp. 147–148).
GHRM is the implementation of HRM practices policies that promote sustainable
use of resources, create a green workforce, and encourage green culture among
employees, which benefit society and the environment (Ahmad, 2015; Mampra,
2013; Shahriari et al., 2019). Since GHRM is in the embryonic phase, most
research focuses on advocating the potential benefits of HRM practices and giving
directions for research (Ahmad, 2015; Benevene & Buonomo, 2020). Research is
gradually progressing to provide empirical evidence of the effect of GHRM on
Veerasamy et al. 3
employee green behaviour (EGB) (Iftikhar et al., 2021; Shafaei et al., 2020).
Some researchers contend that GHRM ensures environmental sustainability by
focusing on the 3D approach (de-materialisation, de-carbonisation and
de-mobilisation) (Chen et al., 2018; Hossen et al., 2018).
The paucity of studies on finding empirical relationships on the effects of GHRM
practices is evidenced in literature reviews by several scholars (Renwick et al.,
2013). Further, some researchers contend that the literature on GHRM focused
mainly on the western world, and only a few studies were available on Asian
environmental management in the Asian world (Ahmad, 2015; Renwick et al.,
2013). After reviewing several studies, Shahriari et al. (2019) pointed out that there
is a ‘lack of comprehensive studies and research about GHRM in undeveloped
countries and Asia’ (p. 177). Because of the lack of research focusing on Asian
countries, little is known about how GHRM practices influence individual and
organisational outcomes (Ren et al., 2018) and the boundary conditions that change
the strength of the relationship between antecedents of employee green behaviour
and green compensation (Benevene & Buonomo, 2020). To recall the history, the
evolution of HR function in Indian organisations was well documented sometime
back (Rao, 2014), but the green HRM function is still in its embryonic stage. To the
best of our knowledge, most of the research on GHRM practices in the Indian
context is conceptual rather than empirical. For example, Varma and Balachandran
(2021) provided a conceptual framework for the GHRM practices in Indian higher
educational institutions. Another non-empirical study by Pothuraju and Battu (2018)
focused on an emerging trend in HR practices in the Indian context. In the present
study, we test the hypotheses about the relationship between GHRM practices and
outcomes; thus, our contribution is empirical. In brief, this research aims to bridge
the gap and complement the conceptual framework by empirically exploring the
effect of GHRM practices on green employee behaviour that contributes to high
performance and environmental sustainability. Responding to the call by earlier
researchers to have empirical studies in Asian context, this study examines how
HRM practices in educational institutions in India lead to environmental-friendly
behaviour by employees resulting in environmental sustainability. Though the
research on GHRM has been exploding, a relatively small number of studies focused
on the antecedents and consequences of EGB, particularly in the context of
educational institutions. Some studies in the western context dwelled on studying
green behaviour in manufacturing sector (Davis et al., 2018), and hotel industry
(Iftikhar et al., 2021; Shafaei et al., 2020), not many studies concentrated on
educational institutions. This study is aimed to fill the gap by studying the GHRM
practices followed in educational institutions in recruitment, performance
management, and rewards for exhibiting environmental concerns by the employees.
Educational institutions are responsible for creating awareness among employees
and students to adhere to waste management, maintain cleanliness, use pro-
environmental resources, and promote green culture (Bhandari, 2019; Mukharjee et
al., 2020). The primary responsibility of faculties in educational institutions is to
impart knowledge in respective subject areas and inculcate a sense of environmental
responsibility to the students. As educational institutions are the knowledge
disseminators among the students (Prakash et al., 2022), it is essential that the
faculty need to educate the students about the importance of a green environment
that promotes sustainability and contributes to the welfare of the society. In the
Indian context, the scant research on GHRM in educational institutions outlined the
green HRM practices such as recruitment, performance management, green
compensation, and green training and development among the employees
(Bhagyalakshmi & Priyanka, 2019). In the successful implementation of green
strategies, the individuals and groups need to understand effective environmental
management, and educational institutions have a pivotal role in this process. We
first examine the effect of green recruitment strategies (GRS), green institutional
initiatives (GII), and green performance management (GPM) on employee green
behaviour (EGB). Second, we investigate the role of employee green participation
and involvement (EGPI) and employee green training and development (EGTD)
programs in educational institutions. Third, we study the consequences of EGB in
terms of employee green compensation and rewards (EGCR).
The current study contributes to the literature on GHRM in five ways. First, by
establishing the positive association between GRS and EGB, this study highlights
the importance of including environmental consciousness in the recruitment
process. Second, the positive link between GII and EGB suggests that institutions
undertake initiatives to promote a green environment in organisations that
enhances green behaviour. The knowledge from the faculty about the EGB is
more likely to be transferred to the students, who, in turn, will make a positive
contribution to the environment and society. Third, this research provides
empirical evidence for positive effect of green performance management on EGB.
Periodical evaluation of green performance is essential in organisations to
motivate employees to increase environmental protection and sustainability
awareness. Fourth, employee participation and involvement in activities
promoting a green environment strengthen the positive relationship between
green recruitment and EGB. When recruiting and selecting employees,
organisations consider the sustainability dimension and expect the incumbents to
participate in the programs fostering green development. Further, the organisation’s
initiatives interacting with employee participation and involvement in green
programs would enhance EGB. Fifth, employee green training and development
combined with recruitment, institutions initiatives, and performance management
would further fortify the EGB. Furthermore, the positive association between
EGB and employee rewards for exhibiting green behaviour suggests that
organisations periodically review the behaviour of employees and reward such
behaviour. To sum, the conceptual model developed and tested in the context of
educational institutions makes a significant contribution to the literature on
GHRM and sustainability.
Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses Development

The theoretical background for this research comes from ability-motivation-
opportunity (AMO) theory (Appelbaum et al., 2000; Blumberg & Pringle, 1982;
Campbell et al., 1970; Renwick et al., 2013; Vroom, 1964) and social identity
Veerasamy et al. 5
theory (SIT) (Hogg et al., 1995; Tajfel & Turner, 1979). The basic tenet of AMO
theory is that performance is a function of employees’ ability (i.e., capacity to
perform a given task), motivation (i.e., willingness exhibited by employees in
achieving the shared mission), and opportunity (stemming from self-directed
leadership of individuals). Further, Vroom (1964) advocated performance depends
on ability and motivation. AMO has been a widely used theoretical framework in
HRM literature (Bos-Nehles et al., 2013; Obeidat et al., 2016; Renwick
et al., 2013).
In the context of GHRM, organisations—(a) recruit employees who have green
competencies and abilities; (b) motivate the employees through training and
development; and (c) and create opportunities for employees in green participation
(Amrutha & Geetha, 2020; Cabral & Dhar, 2019). The performance appraisal
system is a motivating force for the employees (Fawehinmi et al., 2020). At the
same time, positive evaluation motivates them for superior green performance,
and negative assessments create opportunities for green participation and improve
green performance.
Another theory applied in this research is SIT, according to which individuals
tend to identify themselves with particular groups and secure their membership.
As green behaviour is socially acceptable, employees exhibit their interest in
joining a group of people who follow the ‘green’ concept and eventually increase
their green performance (Hogg & Turner, 1987; Kim et al., 2019).
The recruitment strategies employed in selecting the individuals who show
interest in environmental protection and cleanliness are related to the ‘ability’
component of AMO. The institutional initiatives and green performance
management to motivate the employees to exhibit green behaviour and green
performance are related to the ‘motivation’ component of AMO. The training and
development programs undertaken by organisations provide opportunities for
employees to participate and involve in the programs are related to the
‘opportunities’ component of AMO. Following SIT, employees identify
themselves with others who are pro-green in their approach and show the tendency
to exhibit green behaviour. Thus, the constructs used in this research are related to
both AMO and SIT in applying GHRM practices in organisations.
The conceptual model involving these variables is presented in Figure 1.
In the following section we formulate hypotheses based on the conceptual
model developed.
Hypotheses Development
The Relationship Between GRS and EGB

The essence of GHRM is to promote EGB. EGB is defined as ‘scalable
action(s) and behaviour(s) that employees engage in or bring about that are
linked with, and contribute to, environmental sustainability’ (Ones &
Dilchert, 2012, p. 87). The GHRM functions: recruitment strategies and
institutional initiatives and aims to enhance EGB. About GHRM, as per AMO
Figure 1. Research Model.

Source: The authors.
theory, the first and foremost important strategy of HRM departments is to

attract and develop high-performing green employees. Selecting individuals
who have both interest and ability to exhibit pro-environmental behaviour,
referring to the ‘ability component of AMO, is very important to elicit green
behaviour. Green recruitment is defined as “the process of hiring individuals
with knowledge, skills, approaches, and behaviours that identify with
environmental management systems within an organization”’ (Ahmad,
2015, p. 6). Extant research reveals that recruitment of ‘environmentally
aware younger generation’ (Renwick et al., 2013, p. 2) is indispensable for
green performance and also the reputation of organisations (Philpott &
Davies, 2007) which has been supported by subsequent researchers (Jabbour
et al., 2010). Holtom et al. (2008) found that green recruitment of employees
is negatively related to turnover intention and positively related to satisfaction.
Green job descriptions are part of employment contracts in several companies
(e.g., British car manufacturing company Rover), and green employers attract
high-quality workers (Stringer, 2009). Extant research reported that
organisations show their preference to recruit and hire candidates who exhibit
concern for the environment and prefer to work in greener jobs (Brekke &
Nyborg, 2008; Guerci et al., 2016). Further, the requirements of environmental
standards also may have a positive effect on green employee recruitment
(Grolleau et al., 2012). Thus, based on the available empirical evidence, we
offer the following hypothesis:
H1: Green recruitment strategies are positively related to employee green

behaviour.
Veerasamy et al. 7
The Relationship Between GII and EGB

One of the ways of implementing corporate social responsibility by organisations
is to implement green initiatives that promote eco-friendly activities by employees
(Boselie et al., 2001). The motivation component of AMO is related to the
institutional initiatives that promote sustainable and pro-environmental behaviour.
These initiatives include implementing paperless offices as far as possible, energy
conservation and solar-based systems, and encouraging car-sharing to reduce
carbon emissions from gasoline-operated cars (Ahmad, 2015). In present-day
organisations, culture is reflected in green initiatives that minimise adverse effects
and encourage a positive impact on the environment (Roscoe et al., 2019; Sroufe
et al., 2010). These days, organisations encourage employees to use stairs instead
of elevators, reduce paper consumption, and comply with the environmental
regulations practiced (Ren et al., 2018). Some empirical evidence suggests that
green initiatives have positive outcomes by promoting green citizenship behaviour
and sustainability (Norton et al., 2015; Pham et al., 2019). These green initiatives
instituted by organisations are expected to affect EGB positively. Based on the
above, we offer the following hypothesis:
H2: Green institutional initiatives are positively related to employee green

behaviour.
The Relationship Between GPM and EGB

According to AMO theory, performance management plays a vital role in
motivating the employees towards green behaviour. Employees participating in
the opportunities provided by organisations to exhibit green behaviour (related
to the ‘opportunities’ component of AMO), gets reflected in the performance
appraisal. Prior research suggests that performance appraisal results in increase
in citizenship behaviour and commitment (Gahlawat & Kundu, 2020). With
regard to green HRM practices, extant reported positive outcomes of green
performance management and appraisal of employee behaviour (Guerci et al.,
2016; Haddock-Millar et al., 2016; Zaid et al., 2018). In a study conducted on
service and manufacturing firms in Italy, researchers found a positive impact of
performance management on green employee outcomes (Longoni et al., 2018).
The importance and positive effect of performance management and appraisal
have been highlighted by previous researchers (Epstein & Roy, 1997). Effective
performance appraisal provides opportunities for the employees to follow
environmental responsibilities and environmental stewardship (Jackson et al.,
2011). Based on available empirical evidence and logos, we offer the following
hypothesis:
H3: Green performance management and appraisal are positively related to

employee green behaviour.
The Relationship Between EGB and GCR

One of the critical elements of GHRM practices is rewarding the employees for
green performance. Organisations implementing green rewards as a part of
compensation packages motivate the employees to engage in eco-friendly
practices (Forman & Jorgensen, 2001; Ramus, 2002). A survey conducted in the
UK revealed that around 8% of companies provide employees with financial
incentives and rewards for green performance (Phillips, 2007). In addition, the
CEOs are rewarded for implementing GHRM practices and encouraging eco-
friendly practices (Berrone & Gomez-Mejia, 2009; Cordeiro & Sarkis, 2008). In
the US, 186 companies listed in Forbes follow green compensation policies. In the
UK, over 40% of employees are reported that their companies conduct periodical
reviews on how they support environmental objectives (Cotton, 2008). Since
green compensation and rewards follow the exhibition of green behaviour, we
offer the following hypothesis:
H4: Employee green behaviour is positively related to employee green

compensation and rewards.
Employee Green Participation and Involvement

(EGPI) as a Moderator
Employee participation in decision-making and involvement in green practices
play an essential role in environmental sustainability (O’Donohue & Torugsa,
2016). Early research reported positive outcomes of employee involvement in
understanding, learning, and implementing green practices—reducing waste,
pollution, and efficient use of resources to prevent depletion of scarce resources
(Florida & Davison, 2001; May & Flannery, 1995). In their survey of 110 Spanish
factories, Brio et al. (2007) reported that employee involvement and participation
resulted in eco-friendly behaviour and positive outcomes. Organisational culture
of encouraging employee participation and involvement in decision-making about
green implementation enables them to learn about the importance of environmental
protection and suggest improvements (Govindarajulu & Daily, 2004). Furthermore,
employees consider participation and involvement an ‘opportunity’ to learn to
engage in pro-environmental behaviour. Therefore, it is more likely that the
greater the participation and involvement, the greater would be EGB. In this
study, we posit that participation and involvement act as a moderator in influencing
the strength of positive association between recruitment strategies, institutional
initiatives, performance management, and green behaviour (Cabral & Dhar, 2019;
Masri et al., 2017). Though previous researchers did not explore the moderating
effect of participation and involvement, we offer the following exploratory
hypotheses:
H1a: Employee green participation and involvement moderates the relationship

between green recruitment strategies and employee green behaviour.
Veerasamy et al. 9

between green institutional initiatives and employee green behaviour.
between green performance management and appraisal and employee green
behaviour.
Employee Green Training and Development

(EGTD) as a Moderator
Training and development are essential HRM activities in any organisation.
Employee green training is concerned with developing skills and attitudes and
bringing awareness about environmental protection (Zoogah, 2011). Through
training and development, employees learn how to reduce waste, engage in energy
conservation methods, and implement eco-friendly practices (Gholami et al.,
2016; Tang et al., 2018). Organisations develop training programs on environment
management to bring awareness among employees about the importance of
protecting the environment and preserving resources. Such education results in
green knowledge management and ensures employees seek preventive solutions
for environmental damage and depletion of resources (Tang et al., 2018). In a
study conducted in Spain, Gonzalez-Benito (2008) found that training and
development resulted in environmental proactivity in manufacturing. In another
research conducted in Brazil, researchers found a positive association between
green training on supply chain management resulting in pro-environmental
behaviour (Teixeira et al., 2016). We argue that employee green training and
development strengthen the relationship between recruitment, institutional
initiatives, performance management, and green behaviour by employees. Based
on AMO and SIT, it would be interesting to explore the moderating role of training
and development, and offer the following exploratory moderation hypotheses:
H1b: Employee green training and development moderates the relationship

between green recruitment strategies and employee green behaviour.
between green institutional initiatives and employee green behaviour.
between green performance management and appraisal and employee green
behaviour.
Method
Sample
This study focuses on the green HRM practices in educational institutions. We
collected data from the faculty engaged in teaching, research, and service in
higher educational institutions in India’s southern part. A carefully crafted survey
instrument is distributed among the faculty in the colleges and universities. Since
faculty are entrusted with educating students about the importance of a green
environment, we contend that faculty are the primary motivating force for
inculcating the awareness about pro-environmental behaviour among students.
We visited universities and colleges and collected data from 191 faculty members,
as most faculty preferred web-based teaching because of frequent lockdowns and
social distancing norms during the pandemic. Since we collected the data during
the pandemic, we followed convenience sampling which is adopted by several
researchers in the past (Irshad et al., 2021; Madhu et al., 2022; Sivagnanam
et al., 2022). Though the sample size is minimal, the faculty were cooperative in
filling out surveys dispassionately so that the generalisability of results would not
be at stake. Since the faculty understood the importance of research and its
implications, we felt that the data collected was representative of general
awareness about the green environment. Following several studies in the past
(Balakrishnan et al., 2022; Goel et al., 2022) we tested the non-response bias by
comparing the first fifty respondents with the last fifty responses and found no
statistical differences between these two groups.
Demographics
The respondents consist of 103 (53.92%) men, and 88 (46.08%) women [M age =
40.49; SD = 8.27; M minimum age = 23; M maximum age = 62]. The respondents consist
of 164 (85.9%) were Assistant Professors, 26 (13.6%) were Associate Professors,
and one Full Professor (0.5%). About 55 (28.8%) are working in Aided institutions
and 136 (71.2%) are working in Self-financed, unaided institutions. As far as age
is concerned 21 (10.9 %) were between 23–30 years, 74 (38.74%) were between
30–40 years, 65 (34.03%) were between 40–50, and 31 (16.24%) were between
50–62 years. Age (Mean = 40.49; s. d = 8.27; Minimum 23; Maximum = 62).
Measures
The constructs in this study were measured with indicators drawn from the
literature. Each construct is measured on a Likert-type five-point scale
[‘1’ = strongly disagree; ‘5’ = strongly agree]. We measured the perceptions of the
faculty members on GHRM practices and the outcomes. All the constructs along
with indicators and the sources of measures were mentioned in Table 2.
Analysis
Descriptive Statistics and Multicollinearity

Table 1 captures the descriptive statistics: means, standard deviations, and zero-
order correlations of the variables.
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics: Means, Standard Deviations, and Zero-order Correlations.
Variables Mean Standard Deviation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Green Recruitment 3.88 0.56 0.73
Strategies (GRS)
2. Green Institutional 4.18 0.50 0.37*** 0.73
Initiatives (GII)
3. Green Performance 3.86 0.61 0.56*** 0.59*** 0.79
Management (GPM)
4. Employee Green 3.80 0.57 0.52*** 0.60*** 0.63*** 0.79
Participation and
Involvement (EGPI)
5. Employee Green 4.01 0.50 0.61*** 0.59*** 0.68*** 0.56*** 0.73
Training and Develop-
ment (EGTD)
6. Employee Green 4.00 0.61 0.59*** 0.46*** 0.48*** 0.53*** 0.59*** 0.79
Behaviour (EGB)
7. Employee Green 3.72 0.57 0.58*** 0.51*** 0.67*** 0.74*** 0.54*** 0.43*** 0.75
Compensation and
Rewards (EGCR)
Note: *** p < .001; The values in the diagonals are the square root of average variance extracted (AVE) estimates.
Table 2. Confirmatory Factor Analysis.
Standardised Reliability Variance Average Variance-Extracted Estimate
Constructs and the sources of the measures Alpha CR Loadings (λyi) (λ2yi) (Var(εi))
Green Recruitment Strategies (Zibarras & Coan, 2015; Tang et 0.78 0.85 0.54
Σ (λ2yi)/ [(λ2yi) + (Var(εi))]
el., 2018; Guerci et al., 2016)

Recruitment and selection criteria that recognise 0.76 0.58 0.42
environmental behaviour/commitment
The institution attracts green job candidates who use green 0.67 0.44 0.56
criteria and recruits them
In the recruitment process, we give top priority to green 0.69 0.48 0.52
awareness
Employee selection in this institution is based on 0.81 0.65 0.35
environmental criteria
Employees attracted through environmental commitment 0.73 0.53 0.47
Green Institutional Initiatives (Jabbour et al., 2010; Tang et al., 0.79 0.85 0.54
2018)
My institution creates awareness of environmental 0.72 0.52 0.48
sustainability through green campaign
Continuous improvement of green environmental 0.86 0.74 0.26
management is part of the institution’s mission
In our institution, there are a number of formal or informal 0.77 0.60 0.40
communication channels to spread green culture
My institution encourage students and faculty to plant 0.62 0.38 0.62
medicinal herbal plants and trees to establish a garden in the
campus.
(Table 2 continued)
(Table 2 continued)
Faculty members, students and other staff members are 0.69 0.48 0.52
instructed to dispose bio-degradable and non-biodegradable

wastes separately
Green Performance Management (Tang et al., 2018; Gholami 0.85 0.89 0.62
et al., 2016)
My Institution sets green targets and goals for its faculties 0.80 0.64 0.36
Green contributions of employees are part of the 0.78 0.61 0.39
Performance appraisal system
We make green performance indicators in performance 0.73 0.53 0.47
management system and appraisals
Management gives feedback about achieved environmental 0.80 0.64 0.36
goals and ways to improve the environmental performance
My institution considers faculties workplace green behaviour 0.84 0.71 0.29
in performance appraisal system
Employee Green Participation and Involvement 0.84 0.89 0.63

(Tang et al., 2018; Guerci et al., 2016)
In our institution, employees are involved in quality 0.85 0.72 0.28
improvement and problem solving on green issues
We offer practices for employees to participate in 0.84 0.70 0.30
environment management, such as newsletters, suggestion
schemes, problem-solving groups, low-carbon champions and
green action teams
(Table 2 continued)
(Table 2 continued)
Faculties involve employees in formulating environmental 0.79 0.62 0.38
strategy
Management use teamwork (green team or green task force) 0.68 0.46 0.54
to manage and create awareness of environmental issues
Our institution encourages employee involvement on 0.79 0.62 0.38
environmental issues
Employee Green Training and Development (Jabbour et al., 0.81 0.87 0.54
2010; Zibarras & Coan, 2015; O’Donohue & Torugsa, 2016)
Green training is given more priority over other type of 0.66 0.44 0.56
training.
My institution provides green training for employees to 0.69 0.48 0.52
promote green values
Induction training includes how to use the institutional 0.81 0.65 0.35
resources such as water, paper and energy efficiently
My institution organises national and international seminar, 0.71 0.51 0.49
workshops, symposium and conference on online
Training courses aimed at developing/encouraging 0.79 0.63 0.37
environmental behaviour
Employee Green Behaviour (George & Jayakumar, 2019) 0.84 0.88 0.62
I dispose biodegradable and non-biodegradable wastes 0.83 0.69 0.31
separately
(Table 2 continued)
(Table 2 continued)
I educate my colleagues about sustainable behaviour towards 0.84 0.71 0.29
the environment
I believe that it is always better to preserve the nature rather 0.80 0.63 0.37
ruining and fixing it
I understand that the environment is vital, for life on earth 0.82 0.67 0.33
I am concerned about the scarcity of natural resources for 0.61 0.37 0.63
the future generation
Employee Green Compensation and Rewards (Jabbour et al., 0.80 0.86 0.57
2010; Zibarras & Coan, 2015)
Employee environmental performance appraisals are 0.71 0.50 0.50
registered by the institution
Employees are financially rewarded for their performance in 0.80 0.65 0.35
green environmental issues
Employees who contribute to green environment and 0.88 0.77 0.23
improvements are publicly recognised by the company
Individual incentives or reward programs that encourage 0.86 0.74 0.26
green environmental behaviour
Organisation-based incentives or bonus schemes that 0.45 0.21 0.79
encourage green environmental behaviour
To test the collinearity, it is necessary to examine the correlation matrix and see
if the correlations are not over 0.75. The preliminary analysis of correlations
suggests that the largest correlation was 0.74 between EGPI and EGCR. On the
other hand, the smallest correlation was 0.37 between GRS and GII; hence in this
study, multicollinearity is not a problem with the data (Tsui et al., 1997). Another
check to verify multicollinearity is checking the variance inflation factor (VIF).
We found that the VIF values for all the variables were less than 5, thus suggesting
multicollinearity is not a problem in this research (Montgomery et al., 2021).
Measurement Model and Confirmatory Factor Analysis, Reliability

and Convergent Validity
Following the procedures outlined by Anderson and Gerbing (1988), we first
checked the measurement model and mentioned the results of confirmatory factor
analysis (CFA) in Table 2.
As can be seen in Table 2, the factor loadings of all the indicators of the
constructs were within the acceptable levels and the average variance extracted
(AVE) estimates were well over 0.50 (Hair et al., 2014). Further, the reliability
coefficient (Cronbach’s alpha) for all the constructs were over 0.70, and the
composite reliability (CR) levels (0.70 < CR < 0.90) were within the threshold
levels of 0.9 and were over 0.70, thus provide support for the internal consistency
and convergent validity of the instrument (Moss et al., 2007; Nunnally, 1994).
The goodness of fit statistics reveal: Root Mean Square Error of Approximation
(RMSEA) = 0.056; χ2 /df = 3.53; Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = 0.92; Goodness
of Fit Index = 0.89; Normed, Normed Fit Index (NNFI or TLI) = 0.91.
Discriminant Validity
The square root of AVEs of the constructs should be compared with the correlations
between the variables to assess the discriminant validity (Fornell & Larcker,
1981). From the correlation matrix we can see that the value of AVE for each
construct is ranging from (0.54 to 0.63) and square root AVE (0.73 to 0.79). The
AVE values for each construct exceeded the squares of correlation coefficient
between the constructs. For example, the AVE estimates for GII and GPM were
0.54 and 0.62 respectively, and both exceeded the squares of correlation coefficient
between GII and GPM (Φ21= 0.59, Φ221= 0.35; SE of Φ21= .04; p < .05). Further,
the squared correlation between EGPI and EGTD (0.56) was lower than the
variance extracted estimates of 0.63 and 0.54 respectively (Φ21= 0.56, Φ221= 0.31;
SE of Φ21= .03; p < .05), thus provide discriminant validity of the constructs in
this research. Discriminant validity is also examined through Heterotrait-
Monotrait matrix (HTMT). HTMT ratio compares the average of hetero-trait-
hetero-method (HTHM) correlations with the mono-trait-hetero-method (MTHM)
correlations and if the HTMT values should be below the threshold of 0.85 to
Veerasamy et al. 17
Table 3. Discriminant Validity: Fornell Larcker Criterion.

EGB EGPI EGCR EGTD GII GPMA GRS
EGB 0.785
EGPI 0.535 0.791
EGCR 0.449 0.774 0.756
EGTD 0.443 0.521 0.508 0.724
GII 0.531 0.698 0.575 0.65 0.736
GPMA 0.486 0.637 0.7 0.612 0.539 0.79
GRS 0.609 0.531 0.605 0.39 0.451 0.579 0.732
Table 4. Discriminant Validity: HTMT Criterion.

EGB EGPI EGCR EGTD GII GPMA GRS
EGB –
EGPI 0.624 –
EGCR 0.531 0.843 –
EGTD 0.534 0.608 0.594 –
GII 0.647 0.836 0.705 0.81 –
GPMA 0.567 0.742 0.811 0.712 0.631 –
GRS 0.729 0.64 0.742 0.465 0.55 0.685 –
Note: Abbreviations: EGB: Employee green behaviour; GRS: Green recruitment strategies; GPMA:
Green performance management and appraisal; EGTD: Employee green training and development;
GII: Green institutional initiatives; EGCR: Employee green compensation and rewards; EGPI:
Employee green participation and involvement.
establish discriminant validity (Henseler et al., 2015). As shown in Table 4, the

HTMT values were less than 0.85 and hence the discriminant validity is
established. The Fornell and Larcker (1981) criterion and HTMT criterion were
presented in Tables 3 and 4.
Common Method Bias

Since common method bias (CMB) is inherent in any survey research, it is
important to check for the common method bias. We did Harman’s single-factor
test and found that a single factor accounted for 25.04% variance, implying
common method was not a problem because it is less than 50% (Podsakoff et al.,
2003). In addition, we used ‘latent factor method’ and calculated inner VIF values
for each of the constructs. As Kock (2015) suggest that if VIF values exceed 3.3,
it indicates pathological collinearity and the model is inferred to be contaminated
by CMB. We found that the inner VIF values were less than 3,3 and hence the
model is said to be free from the CMB (Kock, 2015).
Hypotheses Testing
Hierarchical regression was used to test the hypotheses. In a serial mediation,
structural equation modelling (SEM) is preferred whereas in case of the multiple
interactions between the variables, hierarchical regression is robust and gives
unbiased coefficients (Aiken & West, 1991). Therefore, we used hierarchical
regression to test the hypotheses. The regression results were presented in Table 5.
The direct effects were shown in the column 1 of Table 5. The regression
coefficient of GRS on EGB was positive and significant (β = 0.346, t = 4.60;
p <.001), thus supporting H1. The regression coefficient of GII on EGB was
positive and significant (β = 0.179, t = 2.819; p <.01), thus supporting H2. The
regression coefficient of GPM on EGB was positive and significant
(β = 0.152, t = 2.06; p <.05), thus supporting H3. The direct effects model was
significant and explains 46.6% of the variance (F[5,185] = 32.26, p < .001;
R2 = 0.466, and adjusted R2 = 0.451).
Following the procedures recommended by Aiken and West (1991), the
moderation hypotheses were tested by entering the interaction variables in
the regression equation in the second step. The regression coefficient of the
multiplicative term between GRS and EGPI (Step 2 Column 2 of Table 5) was
significant (β GRS × EGPI = 0.154, t = 2.212, p < .05), and the beta coefficient of
multiplicative term between GII and EGPI significant (β GII × EGPI = 0.147,
t = 2.13; p < .05). The regression coefficient of multiplicative effect of GPM and
EGPI was not significant (β GPM × EGPI = 0.087, t = 1.40; p = .162). These results
supported H1a and H2a but did not support H3a.
The results of moderating effect of EGTD on the relationship between GRS,
GII, and GPM show that all the coefficients of the interaction terms are significant
[β GRS × EGTD= 0.290, t = 1.986, p < .05; β GII × EGTD = 0.419, t = 2.39, p < .05;
β GPM × EGTD = 0.511, t = 2.75, p < .05], thus supporting H1b, H2b, and H3b. The
model was significant and explained 50.2% variance in the employee green
behaviour because of main variables and interaction variables (F=16.69, p < .001;
R2 = .0.502, and adjusted R2 = 0.489, ∆F = 6.488 , p <.05; ∆R2 = 0.036).
The interaction effects were presented in graph (Figures 2–5).
Figure 2 depicts the interaction of recruitment strategies with the employee
participation in green programs. When the employee participation in the green
program is high, the recruitment strategies result in higher levels of employee
green behaviour. On the contrary, low participation results in lower employee
green behaviour. Further, when recruitment strategies increases from low to high,
higher level of employee green behaviour is evidenced when participation is high
as compared to lower levels of participation. These results render support to H1a.
Figure 3 shows the effect of participation in green programs in the relationship
between Institutional green initiatives and employee green behaviour. When the
initiatives are low, higher level of participation results in high employee green
behaviour when compared to low participation. However, when institutional
initiatives increase from low to high, even lower participation results in increase
in employee green behaviour and it is not necessary for the employees to show
Table 5. Hierarchical Regression Results of Green HRM Practices on Employee Green Behaviour.
Dependent Variable→ Employee Green Behaviour Employee Green Behaviour
Independent Variables
Main Variables s. e t p s. e t p
(Constant) –.340 .396 –.860 .391 1.879 2.091 .899 .370
β β
Green Recruitment Strategies .347*** .075 4.608 <.001 –.475 .579 –.822 .412
Green Institutional Initiatives .179** .063 2.819 .005 –.870 .535 –1.628 .105
Green Performance Management and Appraisal .152* .074 2.060 .041 1.499 .666 2.251 .026
Employee Green Participation and Involvement .188** .072 2.616 .010 .715 .625 1.144 .254
Employee Green Training and Development .297*** .090 3.311 .001 –.622 .733 –.848 .397
Moderator Variables
Green Recruitment strategies × Employee Green Participation and Involvement .154* .070 2.212 .028
Green Institutional Initiatives × Employee Green Participation and Involvement .147* .069 2.130 .023
Green Performance Management and Appraisal × Employee Green Participation .087 .620 1.404 .162
and Involvement
Green Recruitment strategies × Employee Green Training and Development .290* .145 1.986 .045
Green Institutional Initiatives × Employee Green Training and Development .419* .175 2.396 .018
Green Performance Management and Appraisal × Employee Green Training and –.511* .186 –2.750 .007
Development
R2 .466 .502
ADJ R2 .451 .489
∆R2 .036
F 32.26*** 16.271***
∆F 6.488
df 5,185 11,179
Figure 2. Moderating Effect of Employee Green Participation and Involvement

Moderating the Relationship Between Green Recruitment Strategies and Employee
Green Behaviour.
Figure 3. Employee Green Participation and Involvement Moderating the Relationship

Between Green Institutional Initiatives and Employee Green Behaviour.
Veerasamy et al. 21
Figure 4. Employee Green Training and Development Moderating the Relationship

Between Green Recruitment Strategies and Employee Green Behaviour.

Between Green Institutional Initiatives and Employee Green Behaviour.

Between Green Performance Management and Appraisal and Employee Green
Behaviour.
participation and involvement. This is because institution itself engage in green

initiatives. These results render support to H2a.
Figures 4, 5 and 6 show the moderation effect of employee green training and
development in the relationship between recruitment strategies, institutional
initiatives, and performance management and employee green behaviour. In all
these figures, higher level of training and development are associated with higher
level of employee green behaviour. Further, when the recruitment strategies move
from low to high, the relationship between recruitment strategies and employee
green behaviour strengthens when training and development is high (Figure 4).
When green initiatives of the institutions increase from low to high, the relationship
between GII and employee green behaviour becomes stronger when training and
development is high rather than low (Figure 5). Finally, the higher levels of
training and development are associated with strong positive relationship between
performance management and employee green behaviour (Figure 6). These results
render support to H1b, H2b, and H2c.
To test Hypothesis 4, which posits that EGB is positively related to EGCR, we
did run hierarchical regression and presented the results in Table 6. We included
the main variables also into the equation so that the beta coefficient of EGB will
not show inflated values. The regression coefficient of EGB on EGCR is positive
and significant (β = 0.556, t = 9.249; p <.001), thus supporting H4. The direct
effects model was significant and explains 67.4% of the variance in EGCR
(F[4,185] = 96.09, p < .001; R2 = 0.674, and adjusted R2 = 0.667).
The summary of the results of the hypotheses was presented in Table 7.
Veerasamy et al. 23
Table 6. Regression Results of the Effect of Green Employee Behaviour on Green

Compensation and Rewards.
Dependent Variable→ Employee Green Compensation and Rewards
Independent Variables
Main Variables β s. e t p
(Constant) .501 .288 1.737 .084
Green Recruitment Strategies .293*** .062 4.748 <.001
Green Institutional Initiatives .223** .077 2.884 .004
Green Performance .397*** .066 5.985 <.001
Management and Appraisal
Employee Green Behaviour .556*** .060 9.249 <.001
R2 .674
ADJ R2 .667
F 96.09***
df 4,186
Table 7. Summary of the Results of Hypotheses Testing.

Number Hypotheses Result
H1 GRS are positively related to EGB Supported
H2 GII are positively related to EGB Supported
H3 GPM is positively related to EGB Supported
H4 EGB is positively related to employee GCR Supported
H1a EGPI moderates the relationship between GRS and EGB Supported
H2a EGPI moderates the relationship between GII and EGB Supported
H3a EGPI moderates the relationship between GPM and EGB Not supported
H1b EGTD moderates the relationship between GRS and EGB Supported
H2b EGTD moderates the relationship between GII and EGB Supported
H3b EGTD moderates the relationship between GPM and EGB Supported
Discussion
The current study was a modest attempt to examine the antecedents of EGB and
its effect on green compensation and rewards. The study was conducted in the
context of countries in South Asian region. We conducted this research in the
context of countries in the South Asian region. First, we developed a conceptual
model and tested the hypothesised relationships by collecting data from 191
faculty members in educational institutions in one of the thickly populated
countries in the South Asian region, India. After testing the psychometric
properties of the survey instrument, the hypotheses were tested using hierarchical
regression, which is a powerful tool when many interactions between the variables
are involved.
The findings from the study suggest that GRS are positively associated with
EGB (Hypothesis 1), and the results are consistent with what has been proposed
in the literature (Holtom et al., 2008; Jabbour et al., 2010). The results also support
the positive impact of GII on EGB (Hypothesis 2). Though previous researchers
have provided theoretical support for the effect of initiatives by institutions on
green behaviour, to our knowledge, the empirical evidences are scant to support
the results from this study. The findings support that GPMA is positively related
to the EGB (Hypothesis 3); the result is consistent with some of the practices
followed in organisations (Guerci et al., 2016; Zaid et al., 2018). One of the key
findings from this study is the positive effect of EGB on green compensation and
rewards (Hypothesis 4). Literature supports the positive link between green
rewards and green behaviour. Though green rewards motivate the employees for
green performance, we hypothesised that green behaviour reaps benefits in terms
of rewards; our results support the hypothesis.
This study found a positive association between employee involvement and
participation in green environmental programs and the training and development
of employees on EGB (though not hypothesised). The results found support for
the moderating effect of employee involvement and participation on the
relationship between GRS and EGB (Hypothesis 1a). Since no previous research
was available to support this moderation hypothesis, the empirical evidence about
the direct relationship supports the results. The moderating effect of EGPI on
EGB found support (Hypothesis 2a) in this study. Again, despite the non-existence
of previous studies on the multiplicative impact of GII and EGPI, the results can
be substantiated only from the intuitive logic and direct relationships. This
research did not support the EGPI as a moderator in the relationship between GII
and EGB (Hypothesis 3a). In educational institutions, the initiatives launched
might probably not have any impact on green behaviour due to the global
pandemic when the survey is collected.
The moderation effect of employee green training and development programs
in the relationship between GRS and EGB found support (Hypothesis 1b).
Previous researchers have established a direct and positive relationship between
EGTD and EGB but did not study the moderation effect. Hence, no studies were
available to support the results of this study. As hypothesised in 2b, the results
suggest EGTD strengthened the positive effect of GII on EGB. Further, the
moderating effect of EGTD in the relationship between GPM and EGB found
support in this study (Hypothesis 3b). Regarding the moderation effects, literature
is sparse and sporadic to the best of our knowledge. However, the results were in
the expected direction. As explained in the theoretical framework, the results are
consistent with what is expected in AMO and SIT.
Theoretical Implications
This study has several contributions to the theory of Green HRM. First, the results
underscore the importance of green recruitment in influencing green employee
Veerasamy et al. 25
behaviour. In the present-day environmental pollution and irresponsible behaviour

of individuals, groups, and organisations towards sustainability, it is significant to
include green awareness and knowledge while recruiting employees. Most
importantly, the focus on higher educational institutions highlights the necessity
of educating the present students about preserving the environment through green
practices. Second, the results emphasise that organisations need to initiate steps to
promote a green environment. Third, the theory adds to the literature on GHRM
that green performance measurement, including assessment and feedback, is
essential for securing green employee behaviour. Fourth, the finding is that when
employees feel that their efforts towards green behaviours will be rewarded, they
become motivated. Therefore, the results provide strong empirical evidence
supporting the green reward and compensation in the job description and pay
package. Fifth, the study demonstrated that employee participation and
involvement would foster green employee behaviour through the multiplicative
effect of green recruitment and rewarding the employees for green performance.
Sixth, the training and development programs organised by institutions would
foster the knowledge about the importance of environmental protection, resulting
in pro-sustainability behaviours (Fryxell & Lo, 2003). Finally, riding on both
AOM and SIT, the conceptual model developed and tested in this research adds to
the growing literature on GHRM.
Practical Implications
Any research conducted without practical implications would remain merely
academic. This study has several implications for the organisations interested in
exhibiting responsibility towards sustainability and corporate social responsibility.
The results from the study provide strong evidence for incorporating the clauses
in the employment contract to include green awareness and participation while
recruiting human resources. Second, the results highlight tying the compensation
and rewards to green performance to motivate the employees towards pro-
environmental behaviour. Third, institutions should practice, not only preach, the
practices of sustainability in terms of energy-saving, conducting training and
development programs to increase the awareness about the environment in the
minds of employees. Fourth, organisations need to encourage employee
participation and involvement in decisions concerning green management and
evaluation practices. Such involvement would foster employee green behaviour,
which eventually benefits society. Fifth, organisations can attract and retain
employees only when they practice GHRM, which becomes ‘employer branding’
aptly put by Renwick et al. (2012, p. 2). This study was conducted among the
faculty from the higher educational institutions and found that when faculty are
aware of the importance of the environmental protection and sustainability, they
will share their knowledge with the students, who practice pro-environmental
behaviour. Following the AMO theory, institutions need to recruit and retain
employees with green abilities, motivate them through performance management
and appraisal, reward the green behaviour, and provide opportunities to commit to
environmental sustainability (Singh et al., 2020). Following the SIT, employees
engage in green practices to secure the group’s membership that appreciates
responsibility towards sustainability. Thus, this study provides direction to the
organisations highlighting the importance of GHRM initiatives and practices in
promoting the pro-environmental behaviour.
Limitations and Future Research

The results from the study should be interpreted in light of some limitations.
First, the conceptual model is tested in higher educational institutions, affecting
generalisability. Since most studies focused on manufacturing units where
pollution generation is high, researchers found that promoting a green
environment is essential. However, our research intends to educate students
through faculty in educational institutions. The knowledge sharing by faculty is
much broader because students may get employed in any industry, and the
education from the universities would enable them to practice in the respective
organisations in which they get engaged. Second, we focused on a limited
number of antecedents affecting the EGB. A host of other factors (e.g., peer
groups, families, general environment, working conditions in the organisations)
would influence the employee’s green behaviour. Further, perceived
organisational support and trust of employees in the organisation for proper
implementation of compensation and reward as promised may affect the
relationships. Third, the small sample size can be another limitation of this
study. As we mentioned earlier, access to the faculty became problematic
because the data collection was done during the global pandemic. Future studies
may involve much larger samples in testing the hypothesised relationships.
Fourth, the social desirability bias inherent in survey-based research may be
considered while interpreting the results. However, anonymising the survey
report, as suggested by some scholars (Latkin et al., 2017), would minimise the
social desirability bias.
This study offers several avenues for future research. As of now, most of the
studies on GHRM were case-based and qualitative, while a minority of studies
were empirical (see Shahriari et al., 2019). Future studies may focus on finding
the differences in the GHRM functions and activities performed in developed
countries and developing countries. It also would be interesting to see the green
citizenship behaviour and its influence on the performance of organisations.
Further, the differences in the GHRM practices of for-profit and non-profit
organisations may be interesting to unravel. Finally, the identification of some
potential mediators in the GHRM practices and EGB (e.g., regulatory framework
of governments and private institutions) may be examined. To sum up, both
qualitative and quantitative studies need to be combined to enhance the theory and
practice of GHRM for sustainability.
Veerasamy et al. 27
Conclusion
This study provides empirical support for the antecedents of green employee
behaviour and the steps that need to be taken by the organisations in this process.
As the GHRM is still in its embryonic stage, more empirical studies are required,
and this study is a step in that direction. As the resources are slowly depleted,
individuals and organisations need to practice pro-environmental behaviour.
GHRM practices would help achieve ‘green companies’ and eventually emerging
‘green economies’ so that future generations would not be deprived of resources.
We believe that in addition to improving the workplace environment, it is essential
to bring awareness about sustainability to employees’ minds. As organisations are
slowly moving toward a green environment, the identification of new methods
and practices of GHRM will continue to be on the agenda of future researchers.
Acknowledgments
We thank Professor Pavithra Kailasapathy, the Editor-in-Chief, Professor Alka Gupta, the
Associate Editor, and the anonymous reviewers for their constructive suggestions in the
earlier versions of the manuscript.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of
this article.
ORCID iD
Satyanarayana Parayitam https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5565-4413
References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interac-
tions. SAGE Publications.
Ahmad, S. (2015). Green human resource management: Policies and practices. Cogent
Business & Management, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2015.1030817
Amrutha, V. N., & Geetha, S. N. (2020). A systematic review on green human resource
management: Implications for social sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production,
247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119131
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A
review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–
423. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411
Anwar, N., Mahmood, N. H., Yusliza, M. Y., Ramayah, T., Faezah, N. J., & Green, K.
W. (2020). Human resource management for organisational citizenship behaviour
towards the environment and environmental performance on a university campus.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 256, 120401.
Appelbaum, E., Bailey, T., Berg, P., & Kalleberg, A. (2000). Manufacturing advantage:
Why high performance work systems pay off. Cornell University Press.
Awan, U., Sroufe, R., & Kraslawski, A. (2019). Creativity enables sustainable develop-
ment: Supplier engagement as a boundary condition for the positive effect on green
innovation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 226, 172–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2019.03.308
Balakrishnan, S. R., Soundararajan, V., & Parayitam, S. (2022), Recognition and rewards
as moderators in the relationships between antecedents and performance of women
teachers: Evidence from India. International Journal of Educational Management,
36(6), 1002–1026. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-12-2021-0473
Benevene, P., & Buonomo, I. (2020). Green human resource management: An evidence-
based systematic literature review. Sustainability, 12, 5974. https://doi.org/10.3390/
su12155974
Bhagyalakshmi, R., & Priyanka, M. (2019). The effect of practices of green human resource
management based on teaching faculties in Chennai city. International Journal of
Recent Technology and Engineering, 8(4S3), 1–5.
Bhandari, R. (2019). Environmental management systems in higher education institutions
in India: A workplace management approach. International Journal of Research in
Engineering, IT, and Social Science, 9, 112–118.
Blumberg, M., & Pringle, C. D. (1982). The missing opportunity in organizational research:
Some implications for a theory of work performance. Academy of Management
Review, 7(4), 560–569; https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1982.4285240
Boselie, P., Paauwe, J., & Jansen, P. G. W. (2001). Human resource management and perfor-
mance: Lessons from the Netherlands. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 12, 1107–1125. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585190110068331
Bos-Nehles, A. C., Van Riemsdijk, M. J., & Looise, J. K. (2013). Employee perceptions
of line management performance: Applying the AMO theory to explain the effective-
ness of line managers’ HRM implementation. Human Resource Management, 52(6),
861–867.
Brekke, K. A., & Nyborg, K. (2008). Attracting responsible employees: Green production
as labor market screening. Resource and Energy Economics, 30(4), 509–526. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.reseneeco.2008.05.001
Brio, J. A. D., Fernandez, E., & Junquera, B. (2007). Management and employee involve-
ment in achieving an environmental action-based competitive advantage: An empiri-
cal study. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18, 491–522.
Cabral, C., & Dhar, R. L. (2019). Green competencies: Construct development and
measurement validation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 235, 887–890. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.07.014
Campbell, J. P., Dunnette, M. D., Lawler, E. E., & Weick, K. E. (1970). Managerial behav-
ior, performance and effectiveness. McGraw Hill.
Chaudhary, R. (2020). Green human resource management and employee green behav-
ior: An empirical analysis. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental
Management, 27(2), 630–641. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1827
Chen, W. C., Su, C. P., & Rogers, M. M. (2019). Measuring the performance of and trad-
eoffs within the triple bottom line. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation,
13(1), 24−35. https://doi.org/10.1080/15568318.2017.1419519
Cordeiro, J., & Sarkis, J. (2008). Does explicit contracting effectively link CEO compen-
sation to environmental performance? Business Strategy and the Environment, 17,
304–317.
Veerasamy et al. 29
Cotton, C. (2008). Go the green mile. CIPD. http://www2.peoplemanagement.co.uk/pm/

articles/
Davis, M. C., Unsworth, K. L., Russell, S. V., & Galvan, J. J. (2020). Can green behav-
iors really be increased for all employees? Tradeoffs for ‘deep greens’ in a goal ori-
ented green human resource management intervention. Business Strategy and the
Environment, 29, 335–346.
Doval, E., & Negulescu, O. (2014). A model of green investments approach.
Procedia Economics and Finance, 15, 847–852. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-
5671(14)00545-0.
Elkington, J. (1997). Cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st century business.
Oxford University Press.
Florida, R., & Davison, D. (2001). Gaining from green management: Environmental man-
agement systems inside and outside of the factory. California Management Review,
43(1), 64–84.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobserv-
able variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.
Epstein, M., & Roy, M. (1997). Using ISO 14000 for improved organizational learning and
environmental management. Environmental Quality Management, 7(1), 21–30. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)1520-6483
Fawehinmi, O., Yusliza, M. Y., Kasim, W. Z. W., Mohamad, Z., & Halim, M. A.
S. A. (2020). Exploring the interplay of green human resource management,
employee green behavior, and personal moral norms. SAGE Open, 1–18. https://doi.
org/10.1177/2158244020982292
Forman, M., & Jorgensen, M. S. (2001). The social shaping of the participation of
employees in environmental work within enterprises—Experiences from a Danish
context. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 13(1), 71–90. https://doi.
org/10.1080/09537320120040455
Fryxell, G. E., & Lo, C. W. H. (2003). The influence of environmental knowledge and val-
ues on managerial behaviours on behalf of the environment: An empirical examination
of managers in China. Journal of Business Ethics, 46(1), 45–69.
Gahlawat, N., & Kundu, S. C. (2020). Unravelling the relationship between high-involve-
ment work practices and organizational citizenship behaviour: A sequential media-
tion approach. South Asian Journal of Human Resources Management, 7(2), 165–188.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2322093720932071
George, J. S., & Jayakumar, K. N. (2019). Development and validation of employee
green behaviour scale (EGBS) for IT professionals in India. International Journal on
Emerging Technologies, 10(4), 32–37.
Gholami, H., Rezaei, G., Saman, M. Z. M., Sharif, S., & Zakuan, N. (2016). State-of-
the-art green HRM system: Sustainability in the sports center in Malaysia using a
multi-methods approach and opportunities for future research. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 124, 142–163.
Goel, P., Parayitam, S., Sharma, A., Rana, N. P., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2022). A moder-
ated mediation model for e-impulse buying tendency, customer satisfaction and inten-
tion to continue e-shopping. Journal of Business Research, 142, 1–16. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.12.041
Gonzalez-Benito, J. (2008). The effect of manufacturing proactivity on environmental
management: An exploratory analysis. International Journal of Production Research,
46(24), 7017–7038.
Govindarajulu, N., & Daily, B. F. (2004). Motivating employees for environmental
improvement. Industrial Management and Data Systems, 104, 364–372.
Grolleau, G., Mzoughi, N., & Pekovic, S. (2012). Green not (only) for profit: An empirical
examination of the effect of environmental related standards on employees’ recruit-
ment. Resource and Energy Economics, 34(1), 74–92.
Guerci, M., Longoni, A., & Luzzini, D. (2016). Translating stakeholder pressures into envi-
ronmental performance—the mediating role of green HRM practices. International
Journal of Human Resource Management, 27(2), 262–289. https://doi.org/10.1080/0
9585192.2015.1065431
Haddock-Millar, J., Sanyal, C., & Müller-Camen, M. (2016). Green human resource man-
agement: A comparative qualitative case study of a United States multinational corpo-
ration. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 27(2), 192–211.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2015.1052087
Hair, J. F., Sarstedt, M., Hopkins, L., & Kuppelwieser, G. V. (2014). Partial least squares
structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM): An emerging tool in business research.
European Business Review, 26(2), 106–121. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-10-2013-
0128
Haws, K. L., Winterich, K. P., & Naylor, R. W. (2014). Seeing the world through GREEN-
tinted glasses: Green consumption values and responses to environmentally friendly
products. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 24(3), 336–354.
Heinkel, R., Kraus, A., & Zechner, J. (2021). The effect of green investment on corporate
behavior. The Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 36(4), 431–449.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sinkovics, R. R. (2009). The use of partial least squares
path modeling in international marketing. Advances in International Marketing, 20,
277–319.
Hogg, M. A., Terry, D. J., & White, K. M. (1995). A tale of two theories: A critical com-
parison of identity theory with social identity theory. Social Psychological Quarterly,
58(4), 255–269.
Hogg, M. A., & Turner, J. C. (1987). Intergroup behaviour, self-stereotyping and the
salience of social categories. British Journal of Social Psychology, 26(4), 325–340.
Holtom, B. C., Mitchell, T. R., Lee, T. W., & Eberly, M. B. (2008). Turnover and retention
research: A glance at the past, a closer review of the present, and a venture into the
future. The Academy of Management Annals, 2, 231–274.
Hossen, M. M., Begum, M., & Sultana, F. (2018). Managing human resource through
green policy: Ways out and its implication. Trikonomika, 17(2), 49–58.
Hossen, M. M., Begum, M., & Zhixia, C. (2018). Present status of organizational work–life
balance practices in Bangladesh: Employees expectation and organizational arrange-
ments. Journal of Eastern European and Central Asian Research, 5(1), 1–16.
Iftikhar, U., Zaman, K., Rehmani, M., Ghias, W., & Islam, T. (2021) Impact of green
human resource management on service recovery: Mediating role of environmental
commitment and moderation of transformational leadership. Frontiers in Psychology,
12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.710050
Irshad, H., Umar, K. M., Rehmani, M., Khokhar, M. N., Anwar, N., Qaiser, A., & Naveed,
R. T. (2021). Impact of work-from-home human resource practices on the performance
of online teaching faculty during coronavirus disease 2019. Frontiers in Psychology,
12, 740644.
Jabbour, C. J. (2013). Environmental training in organisations: From a literature review
to a framework for future research. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 74, 144–
155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2012.12.017
Jabbour, C. J., Santos, F. C. A., & Nagano, M. S. (2010). Contributions of HRM through-
out the stages of environmental management: Methodological triangulation applied
to companies in Brazil. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 21,
1049–1089.
Veerasamy et al. 31
Jackson, S. E., Renwick, D. W. S., Jabbour, C. J. C., & Camen, M. M. (2011). State of the
art and future directions for green human resource management. German Journal of
Human Resource Management, 25(1), 99–116.
Kim, A., Kim, Y., Han, K., Jackson, S. E., & Ployhart, R. E. (2017). Multilevel influ-
ences on voluntary workplace green behavior: Individual differences, leader behav-
ior, and coworker advocacy. Journal of Management, 43(5), 1335–1358. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0149206314547386
Kim, Y. J., Kim, W. G., Choi, H. M., & Phetvaroon, K. (2019). The effect of green human
resource management on hotel employees’ ecofriendly behavior and environmental
performance. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 76(1), 83–93.
Kock, N. (2015). Common method bias in PLS-SEM: A full collinearity assessment
approach. International Journal of e-Collaboration, 11(1), 1–10.
Longoni, A., Luzzini, D., & Guerci, M. (2018). Deploying environmental management
across functions: The relationship between green human resource management and
green supply chain management. Journal of Business Ethics, 151, 1081–1095.
Madhu, S., Soundararajan, V., & Parayitam, S (2022). Online promotions and hedonic
motives as moderators in the relationship between e-impulsive buying tendency and
customer satisfaction: Evidence from India. Journal of Internet Commerce. https://doi.
org/10.1080/15332861.2022.2088035
Maitlo, Q., Wang, X., Jingdong, Y., Lashari, I. A., Faraz, N. A., & Hajaro, N. H. (2022).
Exploring green creativity: The effects of green transformational leadership, green
innovation climate, and green autonomy. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 686373. https://
doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.686373
Mampra, M. (2013, January 6–9). Green HRM: Does it help to build a competitive service
sector? A study. Tenth AIMS International Conference on Management, Bangalore,
pp. 1273–1281.
Masri, H. A., & Jaaron, A. A. M. (2017). Assessing green human resources management
practices in Palestinian manufacturing context: An empirical study. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 143, 474–489.
May, D. R., & Flannery, B. L. (1995). Cutting waste with employee involvement teams.
Business Horizons, 38(1), 28–38.
Montgomery, D. C., Peck, E. A., & Vining, G. G. (2021). Introduction to linear regression
analysis. John Wiley & Sons.
Moss, S. A., McFarland, J., Ngu, S., & Kijowska, A. (2007). Maintaining an open mind
to closed individuals: The effect of resource availability and leadership style on the
association between openness to experience and organizational commitment. Journal
of Research in Personality, 41(2), 259–275.
Mukherjee, S., Bhattacharjee, S., Paul, N., & Banerjee, U. (2020). Assessing green human
resource management practices in higher educational institute. TEST Engineering &
Management, 82, 221–240.
Nunnally, J. C. (1994). Psychometric theory, 3rd ed. Tata McGraw-Hill education.
Obeidat, S. M., Mitchell, R., & Bray, M. (2016). The link between high performance work
practices and organizational performance: Empirically validating the conceptualiza-
tion of HPWP according to the AMO model. Employee Relations, 38(4), 578–595.
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 and Environment, 28(1), 103–125.
O’Donohue, W., & Torugsa, N. A. (2016). The moderating effect of green HRM on the
association between proactive environmental management and financial performance
in small firms. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 27(2), 239–

261.
Ones, D. S., & Dilchert, S. (2012). Employee green behaviors. In S. E. Jackson, D. S. Ones
& S. Dilchert (Eds.), Managing human resources for environmental sustainability (pp.
85–116). Jossey-Bass/Wiley.
Pereira, T. H. M., & Martins, H. C. (2021). People, planet, and profit: A bibliometric analy-
sis of triple bottom line theory. Journal of Management and Sustainability, 11(1),
64–73.
Pham, N. T., Tucková, Z., & Jabbour, C. J. (2019). Greening the hospitality industry: How
do green human resource management practices influence organizational citizenship
behavior in hotels? A mixed methods study. Tourism Management, 72, 386–399.
Phillips, L. (2007). Go green to gain the edge over rivals. People Management, 23 August,
p. 9.
Philpott, J., & Davies, G. (2007). Labour market outlook (Quarterly Survey Report,
Summer, pp. 1–22). CIPD/KPMG.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias
in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review
of Psychology, 63, 539–569. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452
Pothuraju, V. L., & Battu, N. (2018). A study on green HRM: An emerging trend in HR
practices. International Journal of Management, 9(3), 74–82.
Prakash, C., Yadav, R., Singh, A. & Aarti. (2022). An empirical investigation of the higher
educational institutions’ attractiveness as an employer. South Asian Journal of Human
Resources Management, 9(1), 130–148. https://doi.org/10.1177/23220937221078118
Ramus, C. A. (2002). Encouraging innovative environmental actions: What companies and
managers must do. Journal of World Business, 37, 151–164. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
S1090-9516(02)00074-3
Rao, T. V. (2014). Evolution and evaluation of human resources function in India: A bal-
ance sheet, South Asian Journal of Human Resources Management, 1(1), 91–108.
Ren, S., Tang, G., & Jackson, S. E. (2018). Green human resource management research
in emergence: A review and future directions. Asia Pacific Journal of Management,
35, 769–803.
Renwick, D. W., Jabbour, C. J. C., Muller-Camen, M., Redman, T., & Wilkinson, A.
(2016). Contemporary developments in green (environmental) HRM scholarship. The
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 27(2), 114–128.
Renwick, D. W. S., Redman, T., & Maguire, S. (2013). Green human resource manage-
ment: A review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Review,
15(1), 1–14.
Roscoe, S., Subramanian, N., Jabbour, C. J., & Chong, T. (2019). Green human resource
management and the enablers of green organisational culture: Enhancing a firm’s
environmental performance for sustainable development. Business Strategy and the
Environment, 28(5), 737–749.
Shafaei, A., Nejati, M., & Yusoff, M. Y. (2020). Green human resource management:
A two-study investigation of antecedents and outcomes. International Journal of
Manpower, 41(7), 1041–1060. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJM-08-2019-0406
Shahriari, B., Hassanpoor, A., Navehebrahim, A., & Jafarinia, S. (2019). A systematic
review of green human resource management. EVERGREEN Joint Journal of Novel
Carbon Resource Sciences & Green Asia Strategy, 6(2), 177–189.
Sharma, N., Saha, R., Sridharan, V. R., & Paul, J. (2020). Relating the role of green self-
concepts and identity on green purchasing behaviour: An empirical analysis. Business
Strategy and the Environment, 29(8), 3203–3219. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2567
Veerasamy et al. 33
Singh, S. K., Del Giudice, M., Chierici, R., & Graziano, D. (2020). Green innovation and
environmental performance: The role of green transformational leadership and green
human resource management. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 150,
119762. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119762
Sivagnanam, P., Pillai, A. R., Elangovan, R., & Parayitam, S. (2022). Knowledge man-
agement process, infrastructure, and system quality as resilient strategies to respond
to COVID-19 pandemic challenges: Evidence from higher educational institutions in
India. Knowledge and Process Management, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1002/kpm.1722
Song, W., Yu, H., & Xu, H. (2020). Effects of green human resource management and man-
agerial environmental concern on green innovation. European Journal of Innovation
Management, 24(3), 951–967. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-11-2019-0315
Sroufe, R., Liebowitz, J., Sivasubramaniam, N., & Donahue, J. (2010). Are you a leader
or a laggard: HR’s role in creating a sustainability culture. People & Strategy, 33(1),
34–42.
Stringer, L. (2009). The green workplace. Sustainable strategies that benefit employees,
the environment, and the bottom line. Macmillan
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In The
Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Brooks-Cole.
Tang, G., Chen, Y., Jiang, Y., Paillé, P., & Jia, J. (2018). Green human resource man-
agement practices: Scale development and validity. Asia Pacific Journal of Human
Resources, 56(1), 31–55. https://doi.org/10.1111/1744-7941.12147
Teixeira, A. A., Jabbour, C. J. C., Jabbour, A. B. L. D. S., Latan, H., & Oliveira, J. H. C. D.
(2016). Green training and green supply chain management: Evidence from Brazilian
firms. Journal of Cleaner Production, 116, 170–176.
Tezer, A., & Bodur, H. O. (2020). The greenconsumption effect: How using green prod-
ucts improves consumption experience. Journal of Consumer Research, 47(1), 25–39.
https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucz045
Tsui, A. S., Pearce, J. L., Porter, L. W., & Tripoli, A. M. (1997). Alternative approaches to
the employee-organization relationship: Does investment in employees pay off? The
Academy of Management Journal, 45(5), 1089–1121.
Varma, L., & Balachandran, V. (2021). Green human resource management practices—
implementation in Universities and higher educational institutions: A study. Sambodhi,
44(1), 93–98.
Vroom, V. (1964). Work and motivation. Wiley.
Wehrmeyer, W. (2017). Greening people: Human resources and environmental manage-
ment. Greenleaf.
Zaid, A. A., Jaaron, A. A. M., & Bon, T. A. (2018). The impact of green human resource
management and green supply chain management practices on sustainable perfor-
mance: An empirical study. Journal of Cleaner Production, 204, 965–979.
Zhou, H., Yang, Y., Chen, Y., & Zhu, J. (2018). Data envelopment analysis application in
sustainability: The origins, development and future directions. European Journal of
Operational Research, 264(1), 1−16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2017.06.023
Zibarras, L. D., & Coan, P. (2015). HRM practices used to promote pro-environmental
behavior: A UK survey. International Journal of Human Resource Management,
26(16), 2121–2142.
Zoogah, D. B. (2011). The dynamics of green HRM behaviors: A cognitive social infor-
mation processing approach. German Journal of Research in Human Resource
Management, 25(2), 117–139.

GHRM Paper Jan 20 2023

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

GHRM Paper Jan 20 2023

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Research Article

Green Human South Asian Journal of Human ­Resources

and Employee Green Reprints and permissions:

Udhayageetha Veerasamy1, Michael Sammanasu Joseph2

1 Doctoral Candidate, Department of Management studies, St Joseph’s College (Autonomous),

(Affiliated to Bharathidasan University), Tiruchirappalli, Tamil Nadu, India

Massachusetts Dartmouth, Massachusetts, USA

Submitted: 26 May 2022; revised 1: 21 September 2022; revised 2:

Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses Development

The Relationship Between GRS and EGB

Figure 1. Research Model.

theory, the first and foremost important strategy of HRM departments is to

H1: Green recruitment strategies are positively related to employee green

The Relationship Between GII and EGB

H2: Green institutional initiatives are positively related to employee green

The Relationship Between GPM and EGB

H3: Green performance management and appraisal are positively related to

The Relationship Between EGB and GCR

H4: Employee green behaviour is positively related to employee green

Employee Green Participation and Involvement

H1a: Employee green participation and involvement moderates the relationship

H2a: Employee green participation and involvement moderates the relationship

Employee Green Training and Development

H1b: Employee green training and development moderates the relationship

Descriptive Statistics and Multicollinearity

el., 2018; Guerci et al., 2016)

instructed to dispose bio-degradable and non-biodegradable

Employee Green Participation and Involvement 0.84 0.89 0.63

Measurement Model and Confirmatory Factor Analysis, Reliability

Table 3. Discriminant Validity: Fornell Larcker Criterion.

Table 4. Discriminant Validity: HTMT Criterion.

establish discriminant validity (Henseler et al., 2015). As shown in Table 4, the

Common Method Bias

Figure 2. Moderating Effect of Employee Green Participation and Involvement

Figure 3. Employee Green Participation and Involvement Moderating the Relationship

Figure 4. Employee Green Training and Development Moderating the Relationship

Figure 5. Employee Green Training and Development Moderating the Relationship

Figure 6. Employee Green Training and Development Moderating the Relationship

participation and involvement. This is because institution itself engage in green

Table 6. Regression Results of the Effect of Green Employee Behaviour on Green

Table 7. Summary of the Results of Hypotheses Testing.

behaviour. In the present-day environmental pollution and irresponsible behaviour

Limitations and Future Research

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Cotton, C. (2008). Go the green mile. CIPD. http://www2.peoplemanagement.co.uk/pm/

in small firms. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 27(2), 239–

You might also like

Green Human South Asian Journal of Human Resources