The influence of Green Human Resource Management on the
implementation barriers of Green Supply Chain Management
A multiple case study
Master Thesis
by
Lennard Seinhorst
University of Groningen
Faculty of Economics and Business
MSc Supply Chain Management
February 2020
Supervisor: dr. Chengyong Xiao
Co-assessor: dr. ir. Stefania Boscari
1
ABSTRACT
Purpose: The main purpose of this research is to understand how Green Human Resource
Management (GHRM) practices can work jointly to mitigate implementation barriers related to internal stakeholders of Green Supply Chain Management (GSCM).
Research design: This study is designed as an explorative multiple-case study amongst 12
organizations. Data is acquired through 14 semi-structured interviews with managers and employees.
Findings: GHRM facilitates the implementation of GSCM by mitigating a lack of abilities,
priority and alignment. Lack of abilities can be mitigated with the use of green training or green employee involvement. Green development, green job design and green employee involvement mitigate the lack of priority. The effect of these practices can be complemented with green performance management and green training. The lack of organizational alignment must be mitigated with the use of green performance management, green development, green job design and green employee involvement.
Practical implications: This research provides insights in which practices must be
implemented in order to mitigate barriers and which practices can be used to substitute, complement or enforce these practices.
Contributions: This research contributes to current literature of GSCM, GHRM and ability –
motivation - opportunity theory by proving a broad and interdependent perspective on the integration of human resources in the implementation of environmental practices.
2
1. INTRODUCTION
Studies investigating the state of the earth indicate an alarming situation as a result of increasing depletion of resources, pollution, global warming and biodiversity loss (Srivastava, 2007). Due to increased environmental awareness, stakeholders are pressuring organizations to reduce their environmental impact (Wolf, 2013), since supply chains are responsible for a substantial share of the environmental impact of organizations (Hsu, Tan, & Mohamad Zailani, 2016). Therefore, organizations are heavily investing in environmental sustainability to reduce the environmental impact of their supply chains (Whiteman, Walker, & Perego, 2013). For example, Coca-Cola designed a reversed supply chain, allowing them to produce bottles consisting of 40-60% out of recycled material (Kumar, Teichman, & Timpernagel, 2012). This portrays an example of a Green Supply Chain Management program (GSCM).
GSCM is the integration of environmental issues in the supply chain (Sarkis, Zhu, & Lai, 2011). Therefore, multiple organizations need to be connected and coordinated, which also increases the amount and complexity of human relations and behavioural issues (Santos, 2000). In order to implement GSCM successfully, organizations should take the pressure of stakeholders into account, because they influence the implementation of environmental practices (Ferrón Vilchez, Darnall, & Aragón Correa, 2017). An essential group for the implementation of GSCM is the internal stakeholder (e.g. employees and managers), because they possess knowledge and skills about the operation of the organization which could facilitate reduction of the environmental impact of their supply chains (Renwick, Redman, & Maguire, 2013; Rothenberg, 2003). However, often overlooked are key issues related to human behaviour in the supply chain context (Tokar, 2010), which leads to a poor integration of human aspects in GSCM programs and therefore results in an ineffective implementation (Govindan et al., 2016; Jabbour & De Sousa Jabbour, 2016).
3 program. Qualitative research has found that GHRM has a positive influence on green behaviour (Pinzone, Guerci, Lettieri, & Redman, 2016), environmental performance (Obeidat, Al Bakri, & Elbanna, 2018) and GSCM (Nejati, Rabiei, & Chiappetta Jabbour, 2017). Given that the implementation of GSCM is obstructed by barriers (Walker, Di Sisto, & McBain, 2008) and GHRM is essential for the effective implementation of GSCM (Charbel José Chiappetta Jabbour & De Sousa Jabbour, 2016), this research has taken a closer look to understand how different GHRM practices can work jointly in GSCM programs in order to mitigate implementation barriers. Therefore, the research question is: “How can Green
Human Resource Management facilitate the implementation of Green Supply Chain Management by reducing implementation barriers related to internal stakeholders?“
4 each other and it identifies the importance of individual practices in relation to the implementation of GSCM.
5
2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
This section explains Green Supply Chain Management (GSCM) and the implementation barriers related to internal stakeholders. Furthermore, the literature of Green Human Resource Management (GHRM) is explained in the light of the ability – motivation – opportunity theory.
2.1 Green Supply Chain Management
In this research, the most widely known definition of GSCM is used (de Oliveira, Espindola, da Silva, da Silva, & Rocha, 2018), which defines the concept as "Integrating environmental
thinking into supply-chain management, including product design, material sourcing and selection, manufacturing processes, delivery of the final product to the consumers as well as the end-of life management of the product after its useful life" (Srivastava, 2007: 54-55). The
6
Implementation barriers of Green Supply Chain Management
Several studies have been conducted on the implementation of GSCM and found a large amount of implementation barriers (e.g. da Silva, Shibao, Barbieri, Librantz, & Santos, 2018; Dube & Gawande, 2016; Govindan, Kaliyan, & Kannan, 2013; Tseng, Islam, Karia, Fauzi, & Afrin, 2019; Walker et al., 2008). A significant source of barriers is related to employees, because when organizations move towards a more advanced level of GSCM, behavioural aspects become more relevant (Wagner, 2013). It is found that employee integration positively relates to an organizations’ (environmental) performance (Wolf, 2013). Therefore, organizations should involve employees to make environmental sustainability more successful. Furthermore, human resource practices have a strong influence on the success of an organizations’ SCM strategy and performance (McAfee, Glassman, & Honeycutt, 2002). Despite this influence, the relation between HRM and SCM has still been neglected (Lengnick-Hall, Lengnick-Hall, & Rigsbee, 2013). This implies that when environmental sustainability is inserted in this discussion, the relation is even more overlooked. If human resource practices are missing during the implementation of GSCM, the probability of a lack of competent, motivated and committed employees increases (Sarkis, Gonzalez-Torre, & Adenso-Diaz, 2010), thus barriers are created.
Barriers which relate to a lack of human resources during the implementation of GSCM are: lack of awareness, knowledge, skills, support from management, cooperation, communication, goals, green behaviour, attitude and resistance to change (Charbel José Chiappetta Jabbour & De Sousa Jabbour, 2016). Human resource practices provide knowledge, motivation and skills, which are necessary for the implementation of supply chain practices (Ellinger & Ellinger, 2014). If human resource practices are critical to the success of supply chain management, they may be also essential for the success of GSCM (Muduli, Govindan, Barve, Kannan, & Geng, 2013) and therefore may reduce implementation barriers. Organizations that are in an early stage of development regarding environmental practices are less active in activities that focus on human related aspects, than organizations which are in a more advanced stage (Charbel José Chiappetta Jabbour, Neto, Gobbo, Ribeiro, & De Sousa Jabbour, 2015). Consequently, the former may suffer more from implementation barriers.
2.2 Green Human Resource Management
7 environmental management functions and objectives (Haddock-Millar, Sanyal, & Müller-Camen, 2016). GHRM has been an increasingly important research topic, which is shown by the fact that between 2007 until now, 70 studies have been published. Among them, 37 studies were published between 2016 and 2018 (Jing Yi Yong, Yusliza, 2019), which highlights the growing research attention to this topic. However, despite this growing importance, the role of GHRM in implementing environmental practices remains vague (Ren, Tang, & Jackson, 2018). When discussing GHRM, this research refers to it as a method to change employees’ attitudes and behaviour with the goal to integrate sustainability in internal and external activities.
Since most GHRM practices can be related to the ability, motivation and opportunity of employees, is the ability – motivation – opportunity (AMO) theory used to study the complex relationships between the GHRM practices. The AMO theory has been applied in several fields, such as marketing and organizational behaviour, but recently also in operations and supply chain management (Kim, Hur, & Schoenherr, 2015; Renwick et al., 2013; Yu, Chavez, Feng, Wong, & Fynes, 2020). According to the AMO theory, organizations should improve employees’ ability by recruiting, selecting and training employees. In addition, according to this theory, enhance employees’ motivation by rewards and performance management and provide employees with opportunities through employee involvement and empowerment (Renwick et al., 2013). In order to determine the relationship between GHRM practices and the implementation barriers, the relationships between the AMO dimensions have been used:
- Multiplicative: ability, motivation and opportunity practices must be present to ensure the mitigation of the barrier (Kim et al., 2015);
- Summative: ability, motivation and opportunity practices contribute independently to the mitigation of the barrier (Marin-Garcia & Tomas, 2016);
- Combinative: some of the ability, motivation and opportunity practices influence the mitigation of the barrier directly, while others only increase the effect of other practices (Bos-Nehles, van Riemsdijk, & Looise, 2013).
Green Human Resource practices
8 importance to GHRM, while others state that it is one of the most important aspects (Nobari, Seyedjavadin, Arbatani, & Roodposhti, 2018). Furthermore, the direct influence of GRS on GSCM is not proven (Nejati et al., 2017), but these practices do show an indirect relationship with the implementation of environmental practices (Yu et al., 2020) and a significant relationship with environmental performance (Yusoff, Nejati, Kee, & Amran, 2018).
Green training is required to improve employees’ knowledge and skills regarding environmental practices, which can lead, among others, to improved green purchasing (Teixeira et al., 2016). Training and development provides skills, knowledge and may even increase commitment levels for the execution of environmental practices (Yu et al., 2020). When providing training, it is important to select appropriate topics, analyse gaps in knowledge & skills and align this with who receives training (Teixeira et al., 2016). Green training is found to be the most important practice among the GHRM practices for environmental management in organizations (Gupta, 2018; Nejati et al., 2017) and for creating green behaviour (Pinzone et al., 2016).
However, focussing on training alone is insufficient, because employees need to be motivated and given opportunities to engage in environmental practices (Yu et al., 2020). Motivation practices foster employees’ efforts for performing certain tasks and delivering higher levels of performance (Demortier, Delobbe,& El Akremi, 2014). Motivating employees involves the use of green performance management and green pay and reward management. Green performance management concerns green objectives, -indicators and –results for employees (Tang, Chen, Jiang, Paillé, & Jia, 2018) and is effective for executive and staff employees (Ahmad, 2015). It is supported that this practice contributes to the environmental performance of an organization (Longoni et al., 2018). However no direct influence is found on GSCM practices (Nejati et al., 2017).
9 Creating opportunities is concerned with practices which are designed to delegate the decision-making authority and foster the voice of the employee (Demortier et al., 2014). Opportunity practices of GHRM can be divided in green development, green employee involvement and green job design (Marin-Garcia & Tomas, 2016). Green development involves sharing knowledge and information and has the aim to provide sufficient information and knowledge about important issues, which foster the voice of the employee (Renwick, Jabbour, Muller-Camen, Redman, & Wilkinson, 2016). Green development has a positive influence on GSCM (Nejati et al., 2017) and the environmental performance of an organization (Yusoff et al., 2018).
Green employee involvement is essential, because this increases the effectiveness and efficiency of solving environmental problems (Renwick et al., 2013). It involves the knowledge and skills of employees which they have acquired through their close link with the operations of the organization. They can be involved by allowing them to make suggestions or let them participate in environmental practices (Renwick et al., 2013). For example, green teams and problem solving groups create the possibility for employees to identify problems and select ideas which improve the environmental performance of a supply chain (Guerci, Longoni, & Luzzini, 2016; Nejati et al., 2017). Furthermore, it is found that green employee involvement is an important attribute of GHRM (Gupta, 2018) and has a direct influence on GSCM (Nejati et al., 2017).
10
3. METHODOLOGY
This section explains the research design, data collection, selection of cases and analysis of the acquired data to explain how the conclusions of this study were drawn.
3.1 Research design
This study aims to gain an in-depth understanding of the influence of GHRM practices on the implementation barriers of GSCM. In line with the aim of this research, a multiple-case study is used. The use of this method has several reasons. First, research has not yet explored how GHRM practices jointly influence the implementation barriers of GSCM. Therefore, these phenomena have not been thoroughly explained and understood. Second, case study research allows the collection of data from multiple sources and is useful for explorative, qualitative, inductive research (Ketokivi & Choi, 2014). Moreover, case study allows researchers to ask ‘how’ questions, which can be answered by interviewing internal stakeholders and observing practices in a natural environment (Meredith, 1998). Within a multiple case study research, the researcher looks for similarities and differences across cases in order to proceed to theoretical generalization (Ketokivi & Choi, 2014), which increases external validity and reduces observer bias (Karlsson, 2016). Despite these advantages, there are some challenges which have been taken into account, such as the time and skills needed to execute the research and the limited generalizability of conclusions (Karlsson, 2016).
3.2 Case selection
11 and willingness to cooperate (Karlsson, 2016). This has resulted in twelve cases, where eight were acquired first-handed, while four other cases were acquired through other academics.
3.3 Data collection
The primary data source for this research consist of semi-structured interviews. 16 employees of 12 different organizations have been interviewed in order to gain an in-depth understanding. An overview of the cases can be found in Appendix A. Ten interviews across eight cases have been carried out first handed. A majority of them have been carried out by two academics. The other four cases have been acquired through other academics. The interviewees were selected based on their role and knowledge within the organization. Furthermore, a diverse group of interviewees were selected in order to gain a comprehensive image of GHRM practices and the implementation of GSCM programs. In order to increase the replicability and reliability an interview protocol was developed, which can be found in Appendix B. This interview protocol consists of the process of the interview, the general rules and the interview questions. This protocol also incorporates questions from other academics, because this created the possibility to gather data from more cases. The questions regarding the GSCM programs were developed based on existing literature in order to increase validity. Questions regarding the implementation barriers and GHRM practices were not based on existing literature and were kept general to prevent confirmation bias. Besides primary data, secondary data has been provided by the organizations. This data consists of documents related to their environmental practices, sustainability reports and certification standards. However, this has not led to any new insights, but it allowed the research to create a better understanding of the cases. The interviews acquired by the researcher are reviewed by key informants of the research. Furthermore, the provided secondary data is used to confirm the information from the primary data. Reliability is improved by using a case study protocol and the development of a coding database with the use of ATLAS software.
3.4 Data Analysis
12 reduce the amount of codes, similarities among the different codes have been identified. Then the second order themes were created based on research related terms and concepts from literature. The 2nd order themes were classified in 3rd order codes and aggregated dimensions. The coding tree can be found in Appendix C. These codes have been reviewed by another academic to increase reliability of the codes. Not all codes and themes were included in the analysis, because some were not related to the research questions (e.g. external collaboration and lack of financial resources).
After the coding process was completed, within- and cross-case analysis were conducted. The goal of within case analysis was to get familiar with the cases and allowing patterns to emerge within the cases (Eisenhardt, 2016). To increase the understanding of the cases, case study reports of individual cases were written and with the use of ATLAS.ti 8 frequency tables were developed. This improved understanding of the concepts occurred within individual cases and helped the researcher cope with the large amount of data. Furthermore, with the use of the case study reports and frequency tables patterns within cases emerged. For example, within the cases the influence of a GHRM practice on employees and implementation barriers emerged. This prepared the researcher for the cross-case analysis.
The cross-case analysis improved the generalizability of the research (Karlsson, 2016). The researcher has looked in divergent ways to the data to prevent the researcher from jumping into conclusions based on limited data. The cross-case analysis can be characterized as an iterative process, because the theoretical model and propositions have been changed multiple times. First, the researcher developed a theoretical model with the use of 1st order codes based on the first case. After the completion of one case, the model was then adapted based on the 2nd and 3rd order codes. Within this model, the influence of individual GHRM practices on employees became visible, which allowed the researcher to link GHRM practices to implementation barriers. Within a case, one practice could influence multiple barriers, but multiple practices could also influence one barrier. The same model was used for the consecutive cases. This led to three different possibilities during the cross-case analysis:
- A new relation emerged, so a new relation was created; - A relation was not found, so the relation was removed;
14
4. RESULTS
In this section, the results of the collected data will be presented. The first two paragraphs explain the Green Supply Chain management programs and the related implementation barriers. Thereafter, the Green Human Resource Management practices are explained in relation to the implementation barriers. The dimensions and themes are explained based on the 2nd and 3rd order codes.
4.1 Green Supply Chain Management practices
Organizations’ GSCM programs were found to consists of 19 different practices ranging across all six dimensions of GSCM. Organizations were mainly focused on internal environmental management practices. Most frequently mentioned were: energy reduction, green production, re-using or reducing waste and creating sustainable facilities. For example, Organization B mentioned: ‘We are designing products and processes circular. […] We are
reducing our co2 emissions of our processes and products. Lastly, we are improving the sustainability of our office and production facility, by isolating it, using solar panels, using wood which has the unique characteristic to store co2 and generaing our own energy with waste from our production process’. Green purchasing practices were found most common
after internal environmental management practices. 10 out of 12 organizations mentioned green purchasing practices. Most organizations focused on using sustainable raw materials. Organization G explained: ‘We are testing biodegradable or bio-based sustainable raw
materials, such as sugar canes instead of plastics, in order to minimize our environmental footprint’. Eco-design was found in 10 out of 12 organizations. For instance: ‘when we design a new product, the materials that will be used should be recyclable’, as was mentioned by
organization I. Besides these three main GSCM programs, some organizations used the principles of investment recovery, reverse logistics and customer collaboration. However, only five out of twelve organizations were involved in these practices and they were in an early stage of development. For example, organization B mentioned: ‘We are currently doing
15
4.2 Implementation barriers
Across the twelve cases, the organizations mentioned three different barriers which impede the implementation of GSCM programs. It was found that each of these barriers is related to a certain level: employee-, project- or organizational- level.
A lack of abilities was found to obstruct employees in the implementation of GSCM programs. This barrier was mentioned most frequently, being mentioned in 11 cases. It consist of a lack of knowledge and skills and impedes the implementation of GSCM practices, because ‘Employees don’t have a good image of environmental sustainability and don’t know
how they can contribute to this’, as mentioned by organization B. The organizations had
difficulties with changing the attitude and behaviour of employees, as was examplified by organization G:’ Specifically employees do not have the attitude and the education on crucial
environmental issues’. Furthermore, organizations that were in a more advanced stage of
development regarding their GSCM program, were found to encounter the barriers more extensively than organizations which were at an earlier stage of development. For instance: ‘Low-hanging fruits have mostly been removed and we now have projects for which we may
not always have the expertise’, as pointed out by organization D or as organization A
mentioned: ‘We do not have always the proper process technology in place. It’s a very
complex story’. So, if organizations arrive at a more advanced stage regarding the
implementation of their GSCM program, knowledge and skills become increasingly important, because the complexity of the program increases.
With regard to the barriers on project level, two different barriers were found: resistance to change and a lack of priority for environmental projects, being mentioned eleven and nine times respectively. These barriers impede the implementation of GSCM programs, because the desire to engage and be involved decreases. Resistance to change occurred, because employees do not see the need for change, as was illustrated by organization A: ‘If people
have worked at the organization for 40 years, it’s extremely difficult to tell them why and how to do it differently’. Furthermore, a lack of priority occurred, because employees do not have
sufficient time for the implementation of GSCM practices, as was exemplified by organization C: ‘Everyone is busy and has full agendas. So nobody has additional time, next
to their usual activities, to generate ideas and develop projects regarding environmental sustainability’. It has been found that insufficient time occurred within organizations which
16 employees have to implement GSCM practices in addition to their traditional responsibilities and tasks. This induces confliciting interest within a position, because they have to choose between environmental sustainability and other performance measures. For example, ‘I can’t
just invest solely in the environmental sustainability projects, because I also have to invest in new machinery […] These tasks are sometimes contradicting, because I don’t have the time and resources to do both, so I’ve to make choices’, as was stated by organization F or as
organization I illustrated ‘But apart from the reduction of CO2 emissions we have also set and
financial targets which are much more important for everyone’. This barrier was also found in
organizations which have a specialized department in place with regard to environmental sustainability, because environmental sustainability was given a relatively lower priority than, for example, cost and quality.
A lack of organizational alignment was found to consist of: a lack of collaboration between employees and departments and a lack of alignment within the organization, being mentioned in four and seven cases respectively. A lack of collaboration obstructs the implementation of GSCM programs, because resources (money and time) and capabilities (knowledge and skills) could have been shared between employees and departments. For instance, organization E mentioned: ‘A large problem is that the parts of our factory operate like islands regarding
environmental practices. The 4 parts within the factory are not really comparable to each other, and what still happens too much is that everyone chases their own interests without taking those of others in mind as well’. The main reason for this barrier to occur, was that
employees and departments did not share sufficient information regarding the projects they were working on. A lack of alignment obstructs the implementation of GSCM programs, because employees and departments work in different directions regarding environmental sustainability, for example: ‘Sometime you don’t have clear goals and this results in misalignment
between departments and colleagues’, as was mentioned by organization B. This occurred because there was a lack of performance measures and goals regarding environmental sustainability. Besides this, lack of alignment also exist because the measurments and goals that were set, were unfeasible, as organization I illustrated: ‘Now we have to consider that the
headquarters set a 2.5 reduction of CO2 emissions globally. But in the same period our plant has an increased production and thus is it impossible to reduce our emissions to 2.5’. This
17
4.3 Green Human Resource Management practices and implementation barriers
This section will discuss the results of the data regarding the GHRM practices and which implementation barriers they mitigate. Within the 12 organizations, seven methods regarding GHRM have been identified and they mitigated three implementation barriers. The singular GHRM practices do not always mitigate all the aspects of the three barriers, because they consist of several ‘sub-‘barriers. This will be elaborated in the next paragraph.
Green selection and recruitment and implementation barriers
Green selection and recruitment has been mentioned in four organizations. These organizations mentioned that environmental sustainability is part of the criteria to select an applicant or seen as an advantage of an applicant. For example, organization D mentioned:
‘Dependent on your function, you are partially selected and recruited based on your knowledge about sustainability, but not too intensively.’ Furthermore, organization A
mentioned that environmental sustainability has also a reversed influence on who is soliciting on a function: ‘We noticed how young people who are soliciting all ask about how sustainable
our organization is. It would be a disqualifier for them if we were not that sustainable’. So,
new employees with additional knowledge and skills can be brought in the organizations and can apply and transfer it on the existing processes and products of the organization. Furthermore, these new employees can also transfer their knowledge and skills to other employees within the organization. However, it is found that new employees cannot directly transfer their abilities, because they lack specific abilities with regard to the organizations’ products and processes. Therefore, it seems that green selection and recruitment does not have a direct influence on the lack of abilities within the organization.
Green training and the implementation barriers
10 organizations mentioned the use of green training. Some organizations provide training to employees who are interested in environmental sustainability. Others have mandatory training programs which partially consist of the topic environmental sustainability, while some organizations also have specific trainings for employees who need additional knowledge to close a competence gap regarding environmental sustainability. For example: ‘Employees who
work on the work floor get a basic training, which incorporates environmental sustainability’
as was pointed out by organization D or ‘There is a lot of competency training in water
management, biodiversity, air quality, water and waste’, as was mentioned by organization L.
18 environmental sustainability is and how it can be implemented. Therefore, the lack of abilities is mitigated regarding environmental sustainability among employees. Furthermore, employees who participated in a green training could have an increased desire to use these abilities and implement environmental practices, as is exemplified by organization B: ‘So
because of my training, I’m now looking into possibilities to provide frontages for buildings based on lease contract. […] In this way we can reuse the old products’. Employees still need
the possibility to get involved in the implementation of environmental practices to apply their abilities and motivation, because green training solely provides abilities and in some occasions additional motivation to employees. For that reason, it seems that green training has an indirect influence on the priority for environmental projects.
Ability practices and the lack of abilities
As stated, no direct influence was found between green selection and recruitment and the lack of abilities among employees. However, it has been found that if the practice is used by an organization, it is always complemented with green training. For example, organizations L stated: ‘For employees, there are certain sustainability conditions to fill a position. Even
though there are gaps, they are usually met with competency training’. The organizations
which did not make use of green selection and recruitment, mitigated the lack of abilities with the use of green training, as organization F illustrated: ‘When employees start working here a
training is provided where environmental sustainability is a subject of. Furthermore, we also provide refresher trainings to employees’. So, it seems that if green selection and recruitment
is used within the organization, it still needs green training in order to provide sufficient abilities to employees and mitigate the barrier. Therefore, green selection and recruitment increases the influence green training has on the abilities of employees.
Green performance management and the implementation barriers
Green performance management was found in nine organizations and is concerned with providing measurement and goals on organizational-, department- or employee level regarding environmental performance. For example, organization F mentioned: ‘I have the
goal for myself and the organization to save 5% energy every year and I accomplish this every year. This is really motivating’, and as stated by organization I: ‘Every 3 months we send our environmental reports such as water and energy consumption, CO2 emissions, chemical wastes etc‘. Employees become more motivated to work on environmental projects,
19 environmental sustainability. However, this does not hold for all occasions, as organization B illustrated: ‘I don’t need goals to work on environmental practices’. Therefore, green performance management does not have a direct influence on the priority for environmental projects, because it seems it is also depends on other practices of GHRM. Meanwhile, less conflicting interest within a position, project or investment occurred, because employees do not have to focus solely on, for example, quality or costs. This was illustrated by organization A: ‘A R&D-researcher has to explain aspects such as costs and feasibility, however also
aspects such as water, energy- and waste usage/reduction have to be explained’.
Subsequently, green performance management is found to influence organizational alignment, because the organization can work towards the same goals, as was exemplified by organization E: ‘We have to look at goals which are set above us and how we can contribute
to these goals so that we can work together towards the same shared goals’. Nonetheless,
when organizational goals are translated into department or individual goals, as was found in several organizations, the organization becomes even more aligned regarding environmental sustainability, because this prevents a misalignment between higher- and lower level measurements and goals.
Green reward management and the implementation barriers
Seven organizations mentioned the use of green reward management and it has the goal to provide incentives regarding environmental accomplishments. The distinction can be made between monetary and non-monetary rewards, as organization D mentioned a combination of both: ‘Carpooling is also rewarded by reserved parking space close to the entrance of the
factory. […] You still get to keep your travel expenses, so this means more money for yourself’, and organization F mentioned several types of rewards: ‘We also provide incentives in terms of money, a day out or a party with the whole department or team, or a vacation for employees. But this depends on the quality of the idea’. Other non-monetary rewards found
are cycle plans, recognition for successes and providing feedback to ideas. It is not found that providing solely incentives for environmental accomplishments, in both forms, has a direct influence on the priority for environmental projects.
Motivation practices and the lack of priority
20 environmental sustainability is given a relatively lower priority than other performance measures. However, it is found that green reward management is always complemented with green performance management and thus increases the influence of this latter practice. Organizations which did make use of both practices, were found to motivate employees to work on sustainability to a greater degree, than organizations which solely used green performance management. Organization L exemplified this: ‘To make employees motivated,
we make this a mandatory matter. So we put sustainability into a KPI and develop objectives. […] Depending on the value obtained, a varying reward will be given, which is usually in the form of money’. As shown by this quote, the main practice to motivate employees is to
develop objectives and link rewards to these objectives. Therefore, green performance management is used to mitigate the lack of priority to a certain extend and green reward management increases this effect.
Green job design and the implementation barriers
Eleven organizations were found to have green job design practices in place. Integration of sustainability in job design, individual employee practices, and supportive management for sustainability projects all fall under green job design. ‘So, if a researcher wants to pass a
certain stage-gate in the process or for example needs additional funding, then he will not only have to present the business case but also the sustainability case and how it contributes to achieving our long-term goals’, or ‘You can get a bike from the organization, carpooling […] We are also working on shared cars […] working at home is also quite easy for some functions’, as was illustrated by organization A. The integration of sustainability in job design
was found to influence the priority given to sustainability, because it is mandatory to take environmental sustainability into account. Furthermore, supportive management has been found to influence organizational alignment, because they can provide guidance to multiple employees where to focus on regarding environmental sustainability. This was exemplified by organization F: ‘I get some vision and steering from the current management regarding
sustainability. They have set the boundaries where we have to operate in’.
Green employee involvement and the implementation barriers
21 stimulated bottom-up initiation of practices: ‘In this company, we challenge the departments
to fulfil a project that fulfils our sustainability agenda’. Top-down initiation of practices
forces the organization in a certain direction, because management provides issues or improvement projects to departments. Furthermore, internal collaboration forces departments and employees to communicate and collaborate in order to implement an environmental project, as organization I exemplified: ‘‘The horizontal collaboration among departments is
more than necessary. In that way we established common vision, better understanding of the environmental issue, and we share ideas which eventually lead us to the same direction’.
Therefore, green employee involvement improves organizational alignment with regard to environmental sustainability. Moreover, it is also found that internal collaboration and participation in practices increases abilities, because employees gain knowledge and skills regarding how to reduce the environmental impact within the organization. For instance, organization B illustrated: ‘By using inter-disciplinarian teams and create a support base
among the organisation. People can learn from each other and share knowledge and experience regading the implementation and practices’. It is also found that green employee
involvement motivates employees to become increasingly involved with environmental projects, as was explained by organization F: ‘But we also try to let employees participate in
environmental sustainability projects and provide them with opportunities to come up with new ideas. I think this will increase their motivation and decreases their resistance to these projects’. Multiple organizations underlined the importance of employee involvement in order
to increase commitment and decrease resistance to change, because it foster the voice of the employees and gives them a feeling of responsibility. Furthermore, it is mentioned that it could also motivate other employees, because they notice how colleagues implement environmental projects and achieve results.
Green development and the implementation barriers
22
maintenance division, there is no concern about sustainability" have to be educated and provided with an understanding that their division can also be part of sustainability’, or as
organization C mentioned: ‘Increasing support from employees and reducing the resistance to
change can be solved by one simple thing, which is communication’. As examplified by these
quotes, sharing information and knowledge increases the priority employees have with regard to environmnetal sustainability and it decreases resistance to change. Furthermore, providing information to employees affects the organizational alignment, because employees are informed about the areas where the organization is and will be focused on. For example, organization B explained: ‘2 times a year we look back and forward. With these sessions, it
becomes clear for employees where the organisation wants to go and wants to be in a certain period. A red line in these meetings is environmental sustainability’ or ‘the plenary session results in aligning perspectives of employees about sustainability’, as organization F stated.
4.4 Relationships between ability – motivation – opportunity practices
As reported in the previous section, individual GHRM practices are not always effective enough to mitigate certain barriers in its entirety. Therefore, AMO-theory is used to determine the relationships between GHRM practices and the effectiveness of mitigating implementation barriers of GSCM. Three relationships have been found.
Motivation and opportunity practices and the lack of organizational alignment
First, it is found that in order to mitigate all aspects of the lack of organizational alignment, both motivation (green performance management) and opportunity (Green development, green, employee involvement and green job design) practices are needed. Organizations which solely used opportunity practices, lacked organizational alignment, because focus regarding environmental sustainability was not consistently provided. For example, in some occasions provided management guidance to employees where they should focus on with regard to environmental sustainability. However, it is not always the case that the whole management has the same perspective on environmental sustainability, as was illustrated by organization L: ‘Even leaders in top management have different perspectives on the concept
of sustainability´. The same is found to be true for green development and green employee
23 as guidance for the use of opportunity practices, which led to organizational alignment. For example, organization D mentioned: ‘Our usage of water, electricity and gas is measured on
a monthly basis and reflected on with the use of objectives [...] We then discuss the results and look at possible improvement projets’, or ‘In this team, by using monthly data, we suggest ideas and carry out actions’. This exemplifies how performance measures and goals are used
in combination with opportunity practices. It seems that practices of GHRM related to motivation and opportunity have to be present in order to mitigate all aspects of the lack of organizational alignment. For example, if only opportunity practices are used, guidance is not consistently provided to the employees without the motivation practices. If only motivation practices are used, employees are not stimulated to collaborate and communicate with each other regarding these performance measures.
Ability and opportunity practices and the lack of abilities
Furthermore, ability (Green training) or opportunity (Green employee involvement) practices can be used in order to mitigate the lack of abilities among employees. In the previous section was found that both practices increase abilities among employees and it seems that if one practice is missing, the lack of abilities can still be mitigated. For example, organizations which did not use green training, could still mitigate the lack of abilities to implement GSCM programs, because of the use of green employee involvement practices. However, organizations which did use both methods, suffered less from a lack of abilities. For example, organization F used green training to improve abilities of employees, but also used green employee involvement to provide abilities: ‘But we also try to let employees participate in
environmental sustainability projects’. Another example was given by organization L, which
mentioned they used competency training regarding environmental sustainability, but also invited all departments to improve their understanding of environmental sustainability and develop an improvement plan. These examples demonstrates how the ability and opporutnity practice contribute independently to the abilites of employees. When one of the practices is not implemented, the other practice still mitigates the lack of abilites among employees. When both practices are implemented they reinforce one another and thus have an stronger influence on the abilities of employees.
Ability, motivation and opportunity practices and the lack of priority
24 employee involvement and green development) practices in order to mitigate the lack of priority. GHRM opportunity practices increase priority, because employees are educated about their responsibilities, they are involved in environmental projects or it is integrated in their job design. As stated in the previous section, the ability and motivation practices increase the desire to engage in environmental practices. However, they do not have a direct influence on a lack of priority, because they provide solely an understanding of environmental sustainability or performance measures and goals. Without te possibility to engage in environmental practices is the priority gathered ineffective. Organizations which did not use ability or motivation practices, could still mitigate the lack of priority. Therefore, these are supportive in relation to the opportunity practices. For example, organization B mentioned: ’If
you get the opportunity from the company and be intrinsic motivated, then is that enough. I don’t need other motivators’, or as pointed out by organization F: ‘If I improve on energy-usage, I also improve on CO2-emissions, which is an important driver for me since I’m
responsible for that aspect’. The first example demonstrate how the employee who
participated in a training has an increased priority for sustainability practices and how the employee does not need additional motivators such as green performance management to implement environmental practices. However, the employees underline the importance of the need for opportunities. Furthermore, the second example shows how green performance management is used for the measurement of performance and increases the prioirty, while the main reason the employee is interested in the subject, is because he is responsible for these performances. This implies that green training and green performance management increase the effect of the opportunity practices. Moreover, without the ability and motivation practices the priority still increases because of the opportunity practices.
25
26
5. DISCUSSION
This section interprets the results of the cross-case analysis in relation to current literature. Furthermore, research implications and limitation are discussed followed by suggestions for future research.
5.1 interpretation of results
This study has explored how organizations can use GHRM practices with the aim to influence employees, who are key stakeholders (Ferrón Vilchez et al., 2017), and jointly mitigate implementation barriers of GSCM. In line with theoretical research (Charbel José Chiappetta Jabbour & De Sousa Jabbour, 2016), the multiple case study confirms that GHRM practices mitigate barriers related to internal stakeholders, which is a primary measure of the support from GHRM on the implementation of GSCM. However, the relation between GHRM practices and the influence on the implementation barriers was not as straightforward as expected.
27 training and the latter has a direct influence on the barrier of GSCM. This leads to the first proposition:
Proposition 1: Green selection and recruitment has a combinative relation which positively
influences the effect of green training on mitigating a lack of abilities of internal stakeholders regarding the implementation of environmental practices.
The same influence was observed between green reward management and green performance management on the priority level of internal stakeholders regarding the implementation of environmental practices. Thus, according to the AMO theory (Bos-Nehles et al., 2013), this would also be a combinative relation between green reward management and green performance management in relation to the priority of internal stakeholders regarding environmental projects. However, this is in contradiction with the findings of Gupta (2018) and Nejati et al. (2017), because these studies suggested that green reward management has an influence on environmental management in organizations, while green performance management has no or minimal influence. An explanation for this contradiction is that this study had an interdependent perspective on the GHRM practices. This means that the influence between practices in relation to GSCM barriers are studied instead of exploring GHRM practices separately, without taking into account the interdependence among them. Therefore, an indirect relationship has been found between the motivation practices and the implementation barrier, because opportunity practices are needed to make the former practices effective. Based on these findings, the following proposition was formulated:
Proposition 2: Green Reward Management has a combinative relation which positively
influences the effect between Green Performance Management and mitigating a lack of priority among internal stakeholders regarding environmental practices.
28 performance becomes infeasible. Therefore, both motivation and opportunity methods are needed, because they complement one another. According to prior research (Nejati et al., 2017; Sarkis et al., 2010), the alignment between human resource practices and GSCM can help firms to mitigate barriers. The opportunity practices cannot be consistently aligned and do not provide goals without the use of performance management (Jabbour & Santos, 2008). Green performance management was found to establish focus within the organization and therefore aligns the opportunity practices, because the latter determines how these goals should be achieved. However, green performance management does not provide collaboration and communication and internal stakeholders cannot implement GSCM programs if organizations do not have the opportunity practices in place. Therefore, this research proposes:
Proposition 3: Green performance management has a multiplicative relation with green
development, green employee involvement and green job design in order to mitigate the lack of organizational alignment regarding environmental sustainability.
Furthermore, organizations tend to use both green training and green employee involvement. It was found that both practices provide abilities to employees for the implementation of environmental practices, which is in line with prior research (Renwick et al., 2016, 2013; Teixeira et al., 2016). One can imagine that these two GHRM practices can substitute each other in providing abilities. In the most idealistic scenario are abilities provided with the use of green training, and this is supplemented with additional knowledge and skills through green employee involvement. According to the AMO theory (Marin-Garcia & Tomas, 2016), this relation is summative, because the ability and opportunity practices contribute independently to the abilities of internal stakeholders. Even when one of the two practices is not implemented, the lack of abilities is still mitigated. So ideally organizations use both practices, while one of two practices will also be sufficient. Based on these findings, the following proposition was formulated:
Proposition 4: Green training has a summative relation with green employee involvement in
29 In order to motivate internal stakeholders and mitigate the lack of priority regarding environmental practices, organizations used green training, green performance management, green job design, green employee involvement and green development. However, being trained and having performance measures does not necessarily translate into motivation for the participation in environmental practices (Yu et al., 2020). Thus these two practices do not have a direct relationship with the priority for environmental practices. The opportunity practices do provide the possibility to engage in environmental practices and increases the motivation of employees (Renwick et al., 2016). According to the AMO theory (Bos-Nehles et al., 2013), this relation is combinative, because the ability (green training) and motivation (green performance management) practices increases the influence of opportunity practices (green employee involvement, green job design, green development) on the priority of internal stakeholders regarding environmental practices. Meaning that if green development, green employee involvement or green job design are not implemented within the organization, green training and green performance management will not influence the priority of internal stakeholders. As long as the opportunity practices are implemented, the lack of priority among internal stakeholders will still be mitigated, but this won’t be as effective if combined with green training and green performance management. Therefore, organizations should have opportunity practices in place when implementing GSCM programs, while green training and green performance management are optional practices to increase the priority among internal stakeholders. This is in line with prior research, which suggests that the opportunity practices stimulates green behaviour of employees and through this way improve environmental performance (Pinzone et al., 2016; Yusoff et al., 2018). Furthermore, it is also in line with Nejati et al. (2017) who found a relationship between the opportunity practices and GSCM. This has led to the final proposition:
Proposition 5: Green training and green performance management have a combinative
relationship with green job design, green employee involvement and green development in order to mitigate a lack of priority regarding environmental practices among internal stakeholders.
5.2 Theoretical implications
30 individual GHRM practices on environmental performance (e.g. Daily, Bonnie, Bishop, John , Massoud, 2012; Teixeira et al., 2016). They may not find strong relations between individual GHRM practices and the environmental performance or practices of organizations, because some practices do not have a direct influence. Besides demonstrating the need for a broad view when researching GHRM, this research also questions the idea of having an independent view on the practices, as most research in the field of GHRM has (e.g Longoni et al., 2018; Nejati et al., 2017; Obeidat et al., 2018). This means that prior studies have explored GHRM practices separately, without taking into account the interdependence among them. This research demonstrates the value of applying GHRM as an interdependently program rather than independently, since the effect of one GHRM practice may increase when combined with other practices.
Even though research in the field of supply chain management is increasingly applying the AMO theory (Kim et al., 2015; Yu et al., 2020), this research demonstrates how the theory can be used to create an integrative view of human related dimensions in the field of supply chain management. This means that all aspects to move employees towards a certain goal, are taken into account. Human resources are the primary factor of organizational strength, because the success of an organizations strategy is extremely dependent on these resources (Muduli et al., 2013). Therefore, it is essential for researchers to study not only the technical and strategic dimensions of GSCM, but also focus on the human related dimensions. The AMO theory has been found to be extremely useful for this, because it forces researchers to take all the aspects needed for the integration of the human related dimensions into account.
Besides demonstrating the need for the integration of human related dimensions in GSCM literature, this research also questions the literature regarding the AMO theory. Researchers have not reached an agreement regarding the relationship that exist between the dimensions of the AMO theory (Marin-Garcia & Tomas, 2016). The relationships depends on the level of analysis (Kim et al., 2015), but also on circumstantial factors. This may explain why prior research could not reach an agreement which relationship exist, because it may be possible that multiple relationships exist between the dimensions depend on the circumstantial factors.
5.3 Practical implications
31 organizations should not neglect the influence of internal stakeholders (Ferrón Vilchez et al., 2017), because this will result in barriers (Govindan et al., 2016). Organizations should not only pay attention to the technological and strategic dimensions of GSCM, but also to the human dimensions of GSCM. Therefore, it is essential for managers to understand the integration of GHRM when the organization commits to the implementation of GSCM. Top management should consider the influence between GHRM practices and the implementation barriers. This should lead to less barriers during the implementation and to competent, motivated and committed employees (Yu et al., 2020; Sarkis et al., 2010). However, organizations do not have to implement all GHRM practices, because some of them substitute, enforce or complement eachother.
5.4 Research limitations and suggestions for further research
32
6. Conclusion
The goal of this research was to discover how Green Human Resource Management can work jointly in order to facilitate the implementation of Green Supply Chain Management by mitigating barriers related to internal stakeholders. The following research question was developed:
“How can Green Human Resource Management facilitate the implementation of Green
Supply Chain Management by reducing implementation barriers related to internal stakeholders?“
33
REFERENCES
Ahmad, S. (2015). Green Human Resource Management: Policies and practices. Cogent
Business and Management, 2(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2015.1030817
Bos-Nehles, A., van Riemsdijk, M., & Looise, J. K. (2013). Employee perception of line management performance. Human Resource Management, 52(6), 861–877.
https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm
da Silva, F. C. D., Shibao, F. Y., Barbieri, J. C., Librantz, A. F. H., & Santos, M. R. D. (2018). Barriers To Green Supply Chain. Journal of Business Management, 58(2), 149-162. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0034-759020180204
Daily, Bonnie F., Bishop, John W., Massoud, J. A. (2012). The role of training and
empowerment in environmental performance. International Journal of Operations and
Production Management, 14(1), 631.
de Oliveira, U. R., Espindola, L. S., da Silva, I. R., da Silva, I. N., & Rocha, H. M. (2018). A systematic literature review on green supply chain management: Research implications and future perspectives. Journal of Cleaner Production, 187, 537–561.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.083
Demortier, A. L., Delobbe, N., & El Akremi, A. (2014). Opening the black box of hr practices - performance relationship: Testing a three pathways AMO model. Academy of
Management Annual Meeting Proceedings, 1(1), 1201–1206.
Dube, A. S., & Gawande, R. R. (2016). ISM-fuzzy MICMAC approach for analysis of GSCM enablers. International Journal of Logistics Systems and Management, 24(4), 426–451. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJLSM.2016.077281
Eisenhardt, K. M. (2016). Building Theories from Case Study Research. Academy of
Management, 14(4), 532–550.
Ellinger, A. E., & Ellinger, A. D. (2014). Leveraging human resource development expertise to improve supply chain managers’ skills and competencies. European Journal of
Training and Development, 38(1–2), 118–135.
https://doi.org/10.1108/EJTD-09-2013-0093
Ferrón Vilchez, V., Darnall, N., & Aragón Correa, J. A. (2017). Stakeholder influences on the design of firms’ environmental practices. Journal of Cleaner Production, 142, 3370– 3381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.10.129
González-Torre, P. L., Adenso-Díaz, B., & Artiba, H. (2004). Environmental and reverse logistics policies in European bottling and packaging firms. International Journal of
Production Economics, 88(1), 95–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-5273(03)00181-6
Govindan, K., Muduli, K., Devika, K., & Barve, A. (2016). Investigation of the influential strength of factors on adoption of green supply chain management practices: An Indian mining scenario. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 107, 185–194.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.05.022
Gowen, C. R., & Tallon, W. J. (2003). Enhancing supply chain practices through human resource management. Journal of Management Development, 22(1–2), 32–44. https://doi.org/10.1108/02621710310454842
34 collaboration and monitoring enhance organizational performance? Industrial
Management and Data Systems, 112(2), 186–205.
https://doi.org/10.1108/02635571211204254
Guerci, M., Longoni, A., & Luzzini, D. (2016). Translating stakeholder pressures into environmental performance – the mediating role of green HRM practices. International
Journal of Human Resource Management, 27(2), 262–289.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2015.1065431
Gupta, H. (2018). Assessing organizations performance on the basis of GHRM practices using BWM and Fuzzy TOPSIS. Journal of Environmental Management, 226(July), 201–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.08.005
Haddock-Millar, J., Sanyal, C., & Müller-Camen, M. (2016). Green human resource management: A comparative qualitative case study of a United States multinational corporation. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 27(2), 192–211. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2015.1052087
Hsu, C. C., Tan, K. C., & Mohamad Zailani, S. H. (2016). Strategic orientations, sustainable supply chain initiatives, and reverse logistics: Empirical evidence from an emerging market. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 36(1), 86– 110. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-06-2014-0252
J, I. E. P., Govindan, K., Kaliyan, M., & Kannan, D. (2013). Barriers analysis for green supply chain management implementation in Indian industries using analytic hierarchy process. Journal of Production Economics, 147, 555–568.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2013.08.018
Jabbour, Charbel José Chiappetta, & De Sousa Jabbour, A. B. L. (2016). Green Human Resource Management and Green Supply Chain Management: Linking two emerging agendas. Journal of Cleaner Production, 112, 1824–1833.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.01.052
Jabbour, Charbel José Chiappetta, Neto, A. S., Gobbo, J. A., Ribeiro, M. D. S., & De Sousa Jabbour, A. B. L. (2015). Eco-innovations in more sustainable supply chains for a low-carbon economy: A multiple case study of human critical success factors in Brazilian leading companies. International Journal of Production Economics, 164, 245–257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2014.11.015
Jabbour, Charbel Jośe Chiappetta, & Santos, F. C. A. (2008). The central role of human resource management in the search for sustainable organizations. International Journal
of Human Resource Management, 19(12), 2133–2154.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09585190802479389
Jing Yi Yong, M.-Y. Yusliza, O. O. F. (2019). Green human resrouce management: A systematic literature review from 2007 to 2019. International Journal of Benchmarking,
1(1).
Karlsson, C. (2016). Research Methods for Operations Management. Research Methods for
Operations Management. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315671420
Ketokivi, M., & Choi, T. (2014). Renaissance of case research as a scientific method. Journal
of Operations Management, 32(5), 232–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2014.03.004
