Journal of Environmental Management 226 (2018) 201–216

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Environmental Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jenvman

Research article

Assessing organizations performance on the basis of GHRM practices using T

BWM and Fuzzy TOPSIS
Himanshu Gupta
Department of Management Studies, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, India

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Over the past few years, the need for sustainable environmental management has increased rapidly and green
GHRM management has emerged as an important tool for the same. The role of Green Human Resource Management
BWM (GHRM) practices in environmental management and green management is widely known but still lesser dis-
Fuzzy TOPSIS cussed in academic literature. Thus, realizing the importance of GHRM in environmental management by or-
Manufacturing organizations
ganizations, this study attempts to identify the important practices of GHRM and evaluate the performance of
manufacturing organizations using GHRM practices. A three-phase methodology is used for the same. The first
phase involves identification of GHRM practices in manufacturing organizations through literature review and
expert opinion. The second phase involves ranking of GHRM practices using Best Worst Method (BWM) and third
phase methodology involves evaluating manufacturing organizations on the basis of GHRM practices using
Fuzzy Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS). This research can help managers
to identify important practices of GHRM for their organization. This study also provides a framework for
managers to evaluate their organization's performance on the basis of GHRM practices.

1. Introduction managers. Thus, organizations need to develop a strong GHRM de-

partment that can recruit people with zeal towards environment pro-
Increased manufacturing facilities have caused a transformative tection and also train its current workforce to adopt and implement
change in the economic condition of the developing countries, these these activities through proper training programs or by luring them
changes are greatly influenced by resource constraints and environ- through rewards and special benefits (Mishra, 2017). Ren et al. (2017)
mental challenges (Marquis et al., 2015; Ren et al., 2017). Also, pres- have given a working definition of GHRM as “phenomena relevant to
sure from stakeholders has forced the modern-day organizations to understanding relationships between organizational activities that im-
introduce environment-friendly processes and activities (Molina-Azorín pact the natural environment and the design, evolution, implementa-
et al., 2009). Organizations commitment towards saving the environ- tion, and influence of HRM systems”.
ment is an indicator of its environmental performance, the performance GHRM although being a very important area for organizations is
depends on the following criteria: ability of the organization to control still less researched and most of the studies are done in western context
the pollution, lesser discharge of waste in the environment, im- (Masri and Jaaron, 2017; Ragas et al., 2017; Tang et al., 2017). Almost
plementation of recycling and reuse practices at the organization and all of these studies are based on either literature review or are focusing
implementation of systems like ISO 14001 at the organization. All these on investigating the relationship between GHRM and some other con-
activities and systems require direct involvement of Human Resource structs like organizational performance. No study has been done to rank
Management (HRM) department (Lober, 1996; del Brío et al. 2007). the practices of GHRM. With the aim to address these gaps, this study
The success of these pro-environmental strategies is ensured only when has following objectives:
they are well aligned with organizations HRM practices (Collins and
Clark, 2003). For any new strategy to succeed, organizations require • This study aims to identify practices of GHRM in Indian context
competent manpower and resources that are well trained in performing through extensive literature review and expert opinion.
that task (Jiang et al., 2012). Similarly, implementing green practices in • This study aims to rank the practices of GHRM using a novel best –
the organization for environmental protection is an arduous task which Worst methodology.
is largely dependent on the availability of right workforce and • This study aims to rank manufacturing organizations on the basis of

E-mail address: [email protected].

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.08.005
Received 12 April 2018; Received in revised form 10 July 2018; Accepted 2 August 2018
Available online 13 August 2018
0301-4797/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
H. Gupta Journal of Environmental Management 226 (2018) 201–216

their performance on identified GHRM practices using Fuzzy management initiatives (Tang et al., 2017); Providing all the training
TOPSIS. material online to reduce paper cost (Kapil, 2015; Masri and Jaaron,
2017); Designing special workshops for energy management within the
The rest of this study is organized as follows: second section aims to organization (Our contribution); Special training session for waste
identify GHRM practices through review of past studies and expert management and recycling (Renwick et al., 2008, 2013; Jabbour,
opinion. The third section elaborates about the hybrid methodologies 2013); Engaging employees in environmental problem solving (Zoogah,
used in the study. The fourth section is dedicated to illustrating the 2011); Job rotation in green assignments (Prasad, 2013; Arulrajah
application of proposed methodology through a case study of certain et al., 2016).
organizations. The fifth section discusses results and presents their
analysis. The sixth section presents managerial and practical implica- 2.3. Green performance management system
tions. The seventh section is dedicated to sensitivity analysis and the
last section gives conclusions and scope of future work. It pertains to a system of appraising employees' performance in
environmental management abilities (Jabbour et al., 2008). HR man-
2. Literature review agers use green work rating as an indicator for evaluating employees
job performance related to environment and thus help promote en-
GHRM refers to using HRM practices to reinforce environmental vironmental objectives of the organization by monitoring and evalu-
sustainable practices and increase employee's commitment on the issues ating employees behavior and performance (Kapil, 2015; Sharma and
of environmental sustainability. It embraces considering concerns and Gupta, 2015). Traditional performance management systems left out on
values of Environmental Management (EM) in applying Human sustainability aspect of the organization and focused only on objectives
Resources (HR) initiatives generating greater efficiencies and better like the ability to maximize profit, but keeping into consideration future
Environmental Performance (EP) necessary for reducing employees' needs, green performance management specifically concentrates on
carbon footprints (Masri and Jaaron, 2017). A detailed review of stu- organizations and employees ability to accomplish green and sustain-
dies carried out in the field of GHRM taking different perspectives is ability objectives (Tapamoy, 2008; Ramasamy et al., 2017). The main
presented in Table 1. attributes of green performance management system (GPS) are as fol-
lows: Using green performance indicators during appraisals (Kapil,
2.1. Green recruitment and selection 2015; Sharma and Gupta, 2015; Tang et al., 2017); Setting green ob-
jectives and targets for employees (Masri and Jaaron, 2017; Nejati
Traditionally recruitment and selection functions of an organization et al., 2017; Tang et al., 2017); Setting objectives for managers for
are focused only on selecting a candidate who can fulfill desired job green outcomes from employees (Renwick et al., 2013; Prasad, 2013;
responsibilities and drive performance among a set of candidates Masri and Jaaron, 2017; Tang et al., 2017); Negative appraisal for
(Ramasamy et al., 2017). However, to build and maintain a green noncompliance with environmental objectives (Renwick et al., 2008;
workplace the organization needs to select and hire an employee who Nejati et al., 2017; Tang et al., 2017); Employee assessments after at-
supports and is interested in the environment (Renwick et al., 2013). tending Green Training (GT) (Nejati et al., 2017); Regular feedback to
Environmental management has taken center stage among an organi- employees to achieve environmental goals (Jackson and Seo, 2010;
zation's goals and thus they follow a systematic recruitment and se- Jackson et al., 2011; Arulrajah et al., 2016; Nejati et al., 2017);
lection process which concentrate on green abilities and knowledge of
the candidates (Ahmad, 2015). The main attributes of green recruit- 2.4. Green Pay and Reward System
ment and selection (GRS) are: Hiring candidate with environmental
knowledge and awareness (Jabbour, 2011; Ahmad, 2015; Masri and Green pay and reward (GPR) system are means of inciting em-
Jaaron, 2017; Nejati et al., 2017; Tang et al., 2017); Green branding to ployees to work towards environmental objectives of the organization
attract green employees (Tang et al., 2017); Preferring candidates who through financial and non-financial rewards. It is also an attempt to
choose green criteria to shortlist organizations (Tang et al., 2017); prevent talented employees to leave the organization and also attract
Preferring internal employees with green abilities to fill vacant posi- new employees having knowledge of green practices (Jabbour et al.,
tions (Nejati et al., 2017); Designing job positions exclusive considering 2008; Mandip, 2012). Modern organizations adopt the practice of
environmental aspects of the organizations (Opatha, 2013; Masri and strategically rewarding the employees who work towards achieving
Jaaron, 2017); Making candidates aware of organizations environ- organizations environmental objectives (Ahmad, 2015; Ramasamy
mental goals during recruitment process (Mandip, 2012; Renwick et al., et al., 2017). Continuously appreciating the employees and rewarding
2013); Using online tools like video conferencing for recruitment them for their eco-initiatives keep them motivated and aligned towards
(Muniandi and Nasruddin, 2015; Masri and Jaaron, 2017). environmental practices (Daily and Huang, 2001; Renwick et al., 2013).
The main attributes of GPR are as follows: Green travel benefits to the
2.2. Green training and development employees (Ramus, 2001; Jackson et al., 2011; Renwick et al., 2013;
Jabbar and Abid, 2014; Tang et al., 2017); Financial incentives and tax
Training is necessary skill sets which help employees to improve cuts (Ramus, 2001; Jabbour et al., 2008; Arulrajah et al., 2016; Kapil,
their knowledge and help them to be innovative (Liebowitz, 2010). 2015; Tang et al., 2017); Green recognition for environmental man-
However, with growing environmental concerns, the organizations are agement (Ramus, 2001; Masri and Jaaron, 2017; Nejati et al., 2017;
more inclined towards providing green training to its employees. Green Tang et al., 2017); Bonus pay for employees surpassing their environ-
training incites employees to acquire certain skills to attend to the en- mental targets (Nejati et al., 2017); Rewards for innovative environ-
vironmental concerns of the organizations and focus on environmental mental suggestion (Prasad, 2013; Ahmad, 2015; Masri and Jaaron,
improvements thus meeting the organization's objectives (Jabbour, 2017);
2011; Tang et al., 2017). Green training is the most significant method
through which HRM can accomplish organizations environmental ob- 2.5. Green Employee Empowerment and Involvement
jectives and help the organization to transit towards a more sustainable
organization (Teixeira et al., 2012; Jabbour, 2013). The main attributes Green employee empowerment and involvement (GEI) refers to a
of green training and development (GTD) are as follows: Developing system where employees are given opportunities to take part in en-
exclusive training programs on environmental management for em- vironmental management initiatives and thus making them an integral
ployees (Masri and Jaaron, 2017; Tang et al., 2017); Green knowledge part of various practices to prevent pollution and waste management

202
H. Gupta Journal of Environmental Management 226 (2018) 201–216

Table 1
Past studies related to GHRM.

Author Summary/Key findings Country/Region Methodology/Tool Used

Renwick et al. (2008) They developed a model for GHRM to demonstrate the relationship between HRM and Generic Literature Review
green performance. Their research has two-way implications, on one hand, they are of
the view that organizations green abilities influence HRM activities to be more
successful.
Jabbour et al. (2010) This study investigates the role of HRM in the environmental management of the Brazil Correlation, Factor analysis, Case
organizations. The results found that HRM influences environmental management study
throughout its implementation stages.
Jabbour et al. (2013a,b) The authors in their study tried to investigate the environmental management on the Brazil Structural Equation Modeling (SEM)
operational performance of automotive firms through the integration of HR and lean
management practices. The results found that HR practices positively impact
environmental management of the organizations.
Renwick et al. (2013) They conducted a literature review mainly to integrate the literature of environment Generic Literature Review
management with HRM. They used Ability-Motivation-Opportunity theory to
categorize existing literature. The findings suggest that organizations are not adopting
all GHRM practices and are lagging on knowledge of certain practices.
Zibarras and Coan The study was conducted to assess whether the HR practices influence pro- United Kingdom Pearson Chi-square test
(2015) environmental behavior of organizations or not. The results indicate that management (UK)
commitment can influence pro-environmental behavior but still organizations in the UK
are found to be lacking in implementing HRM practices for environmental
management.
Gholami et al. (2016) They conducted a study to check the influence of GHRM in enhancing the sustainability Malaysia Factor analysis, Interpretive Structural
of sports centers. Through factor analysis, 7 factors were identified and performance Modeling (ISM), SEM
management”, and “player involvement and empowerment” were found most
important factors for implementation of the whole system.
Guerci et al. (2016) They tested the mediating role of various GHRM practices between stakeholders Italy Partial Least Square (PLS) -SEM
(customer and government) with the organizational performance. The results confirm
the importance of GHRM practices in improving the environmental performance of the
organization.
Jabbour and Jabbour They conducted a study to propose a framework for integration of GHRM practices with Generic Conceptual Study
(2016) Green Supply Chain Management (GSCM) practices. They are of the view that
integration of GHRM with GSCM is essential for attaining sustainability.
Longoni et al. (2016) They tried to study the deployment of environmental management initiatives across Italy Regression Analysis
various functions in the organization. They studied the impact of adopting GHRM and
GSCM on environmental and financial performance. The results indicate that GHRM
and GSCM jointly exert a positive impact on the performance of the organization and
also GSCM act as a mediator between GHRM and firms' performance.
Pinzone et al. (2016) They carried out a study to investigate the role of GHRM in healthcare. They studied the England Path analysis
role of mediating role of collective affective commitment to Environmental
Management (EM) between green competencies, green performance management &
green employee involvement with collective organizational behavior towards the
environment. They conclude that GHRM is conducive to the collective behavior of
employees towards EM and also employees' willingness and involvement in EM
mediates the above relationship.
Shen et al. (2016) They conducted a study to explore the relationship between employees GHRM Australia SEM, Exploratory Factor Analysis
perceptions and their non-green work outcomes. Perceived organizational support has (EFA)
been used as moderator and organizational identification is used as a mediator. Results
indicate that GHRM positively influences work outcome of non-green employees.
Tariq et al. (2016) They conducted a systematic literature review regarding GHRM and studied the role of Generic Literature Review
employee empowerment as a mediator for employees' motivational levels for carrying
on green activities. A total of 104 articles were reviewed and they concluded that
empowered employees are more motivated to perform environmental tasks which pay
to be green.
Yong and Mohd-Yusoff Their major aim was to investigate the role of Strategic Human Resource Management Malaysia Regression analysis, t-test
(2016) (SHRM) practices in the implementation of GHRM in organizations. The HR
competencies are considered important for implementing GHRM more specifically
strategic positioner or manager is found to influence GHRM adoption.
Masri and Jaaron (2017) They conducted a study to assess the impact of GHRM practices on Environmental Palestinian Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and
Performance (EP) of Palestinian manufacturing companies. A total of 17 HR managers correlation analysis
were interviewed and 6 main GHRM practices were identified. A total of 110
manufacturing organizations were involved and results indicated that all the 6 GHRM
practices have a positive impact on EP of the manufacturing organizations.
Mishra (2017) The study aimed to investigate the status of GHRM in Indian manufacturing industries India Mixed method study
and what are the challenges faced by them. Top management support and interaction
among departments for learning is essential for GHRM. A framework for the holistic
sustainable development of organizations through GHRM is provided.
Nejati et al. (2017) The study was conducted on 161 manufacturing firms to investigate the impact of Iran PLS-SEM
GHRM practices on GSCM and also see the moderating effect of employees' resistance to
both. “Green development and training”, “Green employee empowerment” and “Green
pay and rewards” emerged as most important factors for GHRM. Resistance to change is
also found to effect GHRM adoption.
Ragas et al. (2017) They carried out a research to study the moderating role of green lifestyle to effect of Philippines SEM, EFA
GHRM on the job performance of employees. A total of 332 respondents were taken up
for study and results indicated that GHRM implementation has an impact on employees
lifestyle and hence their job performance.
(continued on next page)

203
H. Gupta Journal of Environmental Management 226 (2018) 201–216

Table 1 (continued)

Author Summary/Key findings Country/Region Methodology/Tool Used

Ren et al. (2017) They conducted a literature review of past studies on GHRM and developed a model of Generic Literature Review
the antecedents, consequences, and contingencies related to GHRM. The model
encompasses of external environmental factors and internal environment factors for
GHRM.
Tang et al. (2017) They carried out a study to develop a comprehensive scale for measuring GHRM China Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)
practices. Based on their study they concluded that GHRM consists of five dimensions.
Ullah (2017) The study identified certain GHRM practices viz. green HR planning, green recruitment, Generic Literature Review
green induction, green training and development, green performance appraisal, green
learning & development, green compensation & reward management and green
employee relations.
Yusliza et al. (2017) The study was conducted on manufacturing and service organizations of Malaysia to Malaysia PLS-SEM
assess the role of eHRM, green employee empowerment, and HR business partner role
on GHRM adoption. Green employee empowerment emerged as almost important
enabler for GHRM.

(Renwick et al., 2013; Tang et al., 2017). Involving employees in dif- 2015). As these disruptions are caused by large human interventions, so
ferent capacities in decision making inculcate a sense of ownership in there is need to explore human involvement in various activities and
them and help align organizations environmental objectives with that find out measures to improve human involvement in various activities
of employees' individual goals and capabilities (Lashley, 2012; impacting the environment (Davis and Challenger, 2013). With the
Ramasamy et al., 2017). The main attributes of GEI are as follows: Clear growing awareness regarding environmental management, the organi-
developmental policies and vision for environmental management zations are bringing up the concept of GHRM for effective environ-
(Nejati et al., 2017; Tang et al., 2017); Climate for mutual learning mental management (Ren et al., 2017). Organizations policies and
about green practices among employees (Tang et al., 2017); Employee strategies towards environmental management will fare well only when
involvement in problem solving on green issues (Liebowitz, 2010; Tang they are in sync with human resource practices of the organization
et al., 2017); Practice sessions and workshops for participation in en- (Collins and Clark, 2003). GHRM is one such concept that can align
vironmental management (Masri and Jaaron, 2017; Tang et al., 2017); organizations environmental strategies with efficient workforce by ei-
Setting up system for employees environmental management schemes ther training them or recruit workforce according to environmental
(Masri and Jaaron, 2017; Nejati et al., 2017); No punishment for un- policies (Renwick et al., 2013). But studies related to GHRM are at the
successful environment improvement ideas (Nejati et al., 2017); In- very nascent stage and still limited to a few countries like Europe
troducing green whistle-blowing and help-lines (Masri and Jaaron, (Zibarras and Coan, 2015), Malaysia (Gholami et al., 2016; Yong and
2017); Involving employees for formulating green strategy and decision Mohd-Yusoff, 2016); Australia (Shen et al., 2016). There are almost
making (Margaretha and Saragih, 2013; Masri and Jaaron, 2017). negligible studies on GHRM in Indian context (Mishra, 2017). India
being adversely affected by environmental degradation is an important
2.6. Green Management of Organizational Culture country to study about GHRM practices, World Bank report shows that
India has 13 top polluted cities of the world out of 20. Thus the need to
“An organization's environmental culture consists of the set of as- study GHRM practices in the context of developing nations like India is
sumptions, values, symbols, and organizational artifacts that reflect the essential. Also, most of the past studies have identified few GHRM
desire or necessity of being an environmentally correct organization” practices and there is no study providing a comprehensive list of GHRM
(Harris and Crane, 2002). Green culture and commitment towards or- practices. This study presents a list of thirty-nine GHRM practices ca-
ganization are fundamental tools for achieving sustainability goals of tegorized into six main categories; the comprehensive list can act as a
the organization (Mokhtar et al., 2016; Ramasamy et al., 2017). Un- basis for future research. Further, most of the studies have either in-
derstanding and adopting green culture can help organization to as- vestigated the effect of GHRM on employee performance and resistance
certain that employees are committed towards green initiatives and (Ragas et al., 2017; Nejati et al., 2017); additionally some have carried
goals of the organization (Ramasamy et al., 2017). The various attri- out literature review or scale development process for GHRM practices
butes of Green Management of Organizational Culture (GOC) are as (Ren et al., 2017; Tang et al., 2017). This is the first study to investigate
follows: Setting formal and informal communication channels to spread the performance of organizations on the basis of GHRM practices.
green culture (Tang et al., 2017); Support from top management for Lastly, there is no study to rank and prioritize the GHRM practices, this
green practices (Ramus and Steger, 2000; Daily and Huang, 2001; is the first initiative to rank the GHRM practices so that HR managers of
Johnson and Walck, 2004; Masri and Jaaron, 2017); Organizations other organizations can work on improving those practices to achieve
mission includes environmental concerns (Paillé, and Mejía-Morelos, the overall goal of environmental management.
2014; Masri and Jaaron, 2017); Departmental budgets covering en-
vironmental impact (Masri and Jaaron, 2017); Green themed games 3. Methodology
(Ragas et al., 2017); Improving employee health and safety (O'Donohue
and Torugsa, 2016). To rank GHRM practices and evaluate the performance of manu-
After extensive literature review and series of discussion with ex- facturing organizations, a three-phase methodology is proposed
perts using Delphi technique, a total of thirty-nine attributes of GHRM (Fig. 1).
are finalized which are further categorized into six main attribute ca- Phase 1 involves identification of experts, literature review and
tegories. The detail of the finalized attributes is presented in Table 2. discussion with experts through Delphi method to finalize practices of
GHRM. Delphi method involves several rounds of discussion with ex-
2.7. Research gaps and highlights perts until a final consensus is reached between experts. Total of five
experts from five different organizations were selected. One HR expert
Asian countries are increasingly confronting to the growing en- from each organization is taken for conducting the whole study. Expert
vironmental degradation caused due to rapid industrialization and 1 is a Senior Manager- Recruitment for a leading automobile company;
growing number of industries and their employees (Marquis et al., he looks after recruitment of new staff and talent acquisition. He is

204
H. Gupta Journal of Environmental Management 226 (2018) 201–216

Table 2
Finalized attributes of GHRM.

Main attribute Sub-attributes Brief explanation References

Green Recruitment and Hiring candidate with environmental This refers to selecting the right candidate having green Milkovich and Boudreau, 2000; Jabbour,
Selection (GRS) knowledge and awareness (GRS1) awareness through the use of certain tests related to 2011; Ahmad, 2015; Shen et al., 2016; Masri
environmental issues and Jaaron, 2017; Nejati et al., 2017; Tang
et al., 2017
Green branding to attract green This deals with building organizations green image Ehnert 2009; Kapil, 2015; Longoni et al.,
employees (GRS2) through adoption of various environmental practices 2016; Tang et al., 2017
Preferring candidates who choose This refers to preferring those candidates who select Renwick et al., 2013; Willness and Jones,
green criteria to shortlist organization on the basis of green criteria and 2013; Tang et al., 2017
organizations (GRS3) organizations green performance so that a good fit can be
obtained between organizations and employees goals
Preferring internal employees with Organization give preference to its internal employees with Renwick et al., 2013; Nejati et al., 2017
green abilities to fill vacant positions green acumen to fill the vacant position
(GRS4)
Designing job positions exclusively This deals with creating positions in an organization Opatha, 2013; Masri and Jaaron, 2017
considering environmental aspects of specifically for managing green practices of an
the organizations (GRS5) organization like an environmental manager, energy
expert etc.
Making candidates aware of This has to do with reflecting organizations environmental Mandip, 2012; Renwick et al., 2013;
organizations environmental goals aspects, green achievements and future sustainable goals Arulrajah et al., 2016; Longoni et al., 2016
during recruitment process (GRS6) and requirements to the candidate during interview
Using online tools like video This refers to minimizing the trend of in-person interview Muniandi and Nasruddin, 2015; Masri and
conferencing for recruitment (GRS7) and promoting the online tools like video conferencing to Jaaron, 2017
reduce traveling cost and fuel wastage
Green Training and Developing exclusive training This deals with designing and developing specialized Mandip, 2012; Longoni et al., 2016; Masri
Development (GTD) programs on environmental training programs according to the needs of the and Jaaron, 2017; Tang et al., 2017
management for employees (GTD1) organization like training on recycling, waste reduction
etc.
Green knowledge management This refers to the systematic management of organizations Govindarajulu and Daily, 2004; Botelho,
initiatives (GTD2) knowledge assets using green technologies like the use of 2012; Renwick et al., 2013; Tang et al., 2017
data centers and cloud technologies which can help reduce
carbon footprint and also help impart green training.
Providing all the training material This deals with uploading all training material online so Kapil, 2015; Masri and Jaaron, 2017; Ullah,
online to reduce paper cost and that employees have easy access to it and use of paper for 2017
wastage (GTD3) printing training documents is minimized
Designing special workshops for This refers to training employees about the importance of Our contribution
energy management within the energy saving and methods to minimize energy wastage
organization (GTD4) like switching off the electric equipment before leaving
through special workshops
Special training session for waste This has to do with training employees about waste Renwick et al., 2008, 2013; Jabbour, 2013;
management and recycling (GTD5) management techniques like better designing of products Tung et al., 2014
and change in production methods to reduce material use
or new packaging methods, checking for any reusable or
recyclable product before disposing of that product etc.
Job rotation in green assignments This has to do with rotating job of employees of the Prasad, 2013; Arulrajah et al., 2016
(GTD6) organization to various departments and roles where green
practices are being followed so as to train them in various
job roles. Also, it comprises of transferring employees who
are not working on green practices to green focus areas so
to accustom them to green practices being followed.
Engaging employees in This refers to involving employees from all level to solve Zoogah, 2011; Longoni et al., 2016
environmental problem solving problems related to environmental management and take
(GTD7) their viewpoints also.
Green Performance Using green performance indicators This deals with establishing certain green criteria like Renwick et al., 2013; Kapil, 2015; Sharma
Management System (GPS) during appraisals (GPS1) performance in green incidents, green responsibilities, and Gupta, 2015; Tang et al., 2017
carbon emission reduction, waste reduction etc. for
appraisals.
Setting green objectives and targets This has to do with setting green targets at the start of each Longoni et al., 2016; Masri and Jaaron, 2017;
for employees (GPS2) year for employees like each employee can be given a Nejati et al., 2017; Tang et al., 2017
target of 10% waste reduction or reduction in energy cost.
Setting objectives for managers for This refers to setting targets for managers to extract certain Prasad, 2013; Renwick et al., 2013; Longoni
green outcomes from employees green related outcomes from employees. Like supply chain et al., 2016; Masri and Jaaron, 2017; Tang
(GPS3) managers can be asked to reduce logistics related fuel and et al., 2017
energy consumption of his group of employees.
Negative appraisal for This refers to negative appraisal in the form of non- Renwick et al., 2013; Nejati et al., 2017; Tang
noncompliance with environmental increment or reduction in salary or bonus of employees et al., 2017
objectives (GPS4) who fail to achieve environmental objectives set to them.
Employee assessments after This deals with assessing the knowledge acquired by Teixeira et al., 2016; Nejati et al., 2017
attending GT (GPS5) employees after attending green training through simple
questionnaires or small activities.
Regular feedback to employees to This has to do with providing continuous feedback to Jackson and Seo, 2010; Jackson et al., 2011;
achieve environmental goals (GPS6) employees on their performance in green activities so that Arulrajah et al., 2016; Zibarras and Coan,
they can improve on areas where they are lagging. 2015; Nejati et al., 2017
(continued on next page)

205
H. Gupta Journal of Environmental Management 226 (2018) 201–216

Table 2 (continued)

Main attribute Sub-attributes Brief explanation References

Green Pay and Reward System Green travel benefits to the This has to do with providing transport facilities and travel Ramus, 2001; Jackson et al., 2011; Renwick
(GPR) employees (GPR1) benefits to employees who wish to purchase green et al., 2013; Jabbar and Abid, 2014; Tang
Green Employee products. et al., 2017
Empowerment and Financial incentives and tax cuts This refers to giving loans to buy bicycles or Euro IV Ramus, 2001; Jabbour and Santos, 2008;
Involvement (GEI) (GPR2) compliance vehicle to help reduce vehicular pollution in Renwick et al., 2013; Arulrajah et al., 2016;
the organization. Kapil 2015; Tang et al., 2017
Green recognition for environmental This deals with publically recognizing, rewarding in terms Ramus, 2001; Masri and Jaaron, 2017; Nejati
management (GPR3) of gifts, vacations, time off etc. to employees who excel in et al., 2017; Tang et al., 2017
environmental management initiatives.
Bonus pay for employees surpassing This refers to giving monetary benefits in terms of bonus to Longoni et al., 2016; Nejati et al., 2017
their environmental targets (GPR4) employees who surpass their environmental targets.
Rewards for innovative This has to do with special rewards (both financial and Prasad, 2013; Renwick et al., 2013; Ahmad,
environmental suggestion (GPR5) non-financial) to employees who give an innovative green 2015; Masri and Jaaron, 2017
suggestion.
Green team excellence awards This refers to rewarding teams rather than individual Bhushan and Mackenzie, 1994; Ullah, 2017
(GPR6) employees that are involved in environmental
management.
Clear developmental policies and This deals with developing policies that are clear about Nejati et al., 2017; Tang et al., 2017
vision for environmental organizations environmental goals and are properly
management (GEI1) communicated to each employee. Also, the organization
mission statement should reflect environmental goals.
Climate for mutual learning about This refers to creating a healthy work culture where Tang et al., 2017
green practices among employees employees and work in coordination with employees of
(GEI2) other departments and acquire green skills.
Employee involvement in problem- This has to do with involving employees of all level in Liebowitz, 2010; Tung et al., 2014; Tang
solving on green issues (GEI3) decision making related to environmental improvement et al., 2017
and taking their continuous feedback on various
initiatives.
Practice sessions and workshops for This refers to involving employees in environmental Masri and Jaaron, 2017; Tang et al., 2017
participation in environmental management through their participation in organization
management (GEI4) newsletters, suggestion schemes and in the form of green
teams in events related to environmental management.
No punishment for unsuccessful This refers to motivating employees to participate in Nejati et al., 2017
environment improvement ideas environmental improvements by ignoring any failed
(GEI5) suggestions they have given for environmental
improvements which even has resulted in loss to the
organization.
Introducing green whistle-blowing This has to do with setting a system where employees can Masri and Jaaron, 2017
and help-lines (GEI6) report any unethical or illegal activity that is being carried
out in an organization that results in environmental
degradation through some helplines.
Involving employees in formulating This refers to involving employees while formulating any Margaretha and Saragih, 2013; Masri and
green strategy and decision making new strategy to cope environmental degradation. Jaaron, 2017
(GEI7)
Green Management of Setting formal and informal This deals with developing a culture such that employees Tang et al., 2017
Organizational Culture communication channels to spread and both formally and informally communicate with each
(GOC) green culture (GOC1) other or managers maybe during lunch or tea breaks
regarding environmental concerns.
Support from top management for This refers to continuous support from top management to Ramus and Steger, 2000; Daily and Huang,
green practices (GOC2) its employees to implement green practices in their area 2001; Johnson and Walck, 2004; Masri and
which they feel can improve the environment. Jaaron, 2017
Organizations mission includes This has to do with including various environmental Paillé, and Mejía-Morelos, 2014; Masri and
environmental concerns (GOC3) concerns like industrial waste management, sustainable Jaaron, 2017
management of raw material, air and water emissions in
organizations mission.
Departmental budgets covering This deals with allocating a separate budget for each Masri and Jaaron, 2017
environmental impact (GOC4) functional department to cater the needs of environmental
management and pollution reduction.
Green-themed games (GOC5) This has to do with the introduction of green-themed Ragas et al., 2017
games for employees to inculcate the culture of
environmental management amongst them.
Improving employee health and This refers to creating a safe environment for workers by O'Donohue and Torugsa, 2016
safety (GOC6) following certain environment related rules to avoid any
hazard at workplace.

having experience of more than twelve years in various manufacturing and overall development of staff for past more than twenty years and
organizations. Expert 2 is General Manager Learning and Development has a team of about fifteen HR professionals working under him. Expert
in a steel manufacturing company. This expert is involved in training 3 is an Assistant General Manager of staff appraisal and performance

206
H. Gupta Journal of Environmental Management 226 (2018) 201–216

Identify decision makers/experts

Determine practices of GHRM through literature

review and Delphi method

Select the alternatives for study

Phase 1
Structure the decision hierarchy

Approve
N decision
hierarchy?

Calculate weights of GHRM practices using

Best-Worst method

Approve criteria Phase 2

N weights?

Evaluation of alternatives

Calculate final rank of alternatives Phase 3

Select the best alternative

Fig. 1. Schematic diagram for phases of methodology.

management system in a machine manufacturing company. He looks Manager Staff recruitment and training for a steel manufacturing
after the yearly appraisal and performance analysis of the employees company. He looks after both recruitment of new employees as well as
and has a vast experience of around fifteen years in staff appraisal roles. training and development of existing employees. He has experience of
Expert 4 is Vice president HR of another leading automobile company about twenty years in training and recruitment of employees. Initially,
and is in charge of almost all HR functions which includes recruitment, through literature review, forty-two attributes were identified; these
staffing, appraisals, staff grievances, training etc. He is also a member of attributes were put forth to experts for finalization. After series of dis-
the organization's committee working on achieving the green goals of cussions with five experts using Delphi technique, four attributes were
the organization. He has a total twenty-five years of experience in deleted and one was added thus making it a total of thirty-nine attri-
various capacities related to HR functions. Expert 5 is a General butes. These were then grouped into six main categories for the purpose

207
H. Gupta Journal of Environmental Management 226 (2018) 201–216

of analysis. The second phase involves ranking of the GHRM practices; wj ≥ 0, for all j (1)
BWM given by Rezaei (2015, 2016) is used to rank the barriers. There
Model (1) when transformed into a linear model gives better results,
are several MCMD (Multi Criteria Decision Making) techniques avail-
the model is shown below:min ξ L s.t.
able like AHP (Analytical Hierarchal Processing), ANP (Analytical
network Processing), MAUT (Multi Attribute Utility Theory), SMART wB − aBj wj ≤ ξ L, for all j
(Simple Multiple Attribute Rating Technique) etc. to rank the criteria
(Subramoniam et al., 2013; Bhattacharya et al., 2014; Mir et al., 2016; wj − ajW wW ≤ ξ L, for all j
Wang et al., 2016, 2017; Scholz et al., 2017), but BWM has advantage
over this technique because it requires lesser number of pair-wise ∑ wj = 1
j
comparisons as compared to other MCDM techniques like AHP (Rezaei,
2015). BWM compares the alternatives with best alternatives and worst wj ≥ 0, for all j (2)
alternative with all other alternatives only, so relatively lesser data is
∗ ∗
required than AHP which requires pair-wise comparison among all the Model (2) can be solved to obtain optimal weights (w w …. , 1 , 2 ,…
∗
alternatives. Also Rezaei et al. (2018) in their paper on airport baggage w ) and optimal value ξ L .
n

service quality assessment mentioned that BWM can work well with Consistency (ξ L ) of attribute comparisons close to 0 is desired
only 4–10 experts, so this method has other advantage that it requires (Rezaei, 2016).
lesser number of experts for analysis apart from less number of data
points. BWM is a very strong MCDM technique and is widely used by 3.3. Ranking the alternatives through Fuzzy TOPSIS
researchers all over the world like Gupta and Barua, 2016 (technolo-
gical innovation enablers ranking); Rezaei et al., 2016 (green supplier The TOPSIS methodology is well known MCDM technique that was
selection); Gupta and Barua, 2017 (green supplier selection); Gupta, first presented by Hwang and Yoon (1981); Lai et al. (1994). The major
2017 (airport evaluation based on service quality); Salimi and Rezaei, advantage of using TOPSIS is the requirement of very fewer data points
2017 (evaluating firms R&D performance); van de Kaa et al., 2017a from experts like criteria weights and linguistic preference of alter-
(selection of biomass technology); van de Kaa et al., 2017b (selecting natives. TOPSIS methodology works on the principle that we consider
electric vehicle); Abadi et al., 2018 (evaluation of medical tourism we have n criteria and m alternatives and selected alternative is having
strategy). In the third phase, manufacturing organizations are ranked a minimum distance from positive ideal solution and maximum dis-
using Fuzzy TOPSIS methodology. Fuzzy TOPSIS is the most widely tance from negative ideal solution. Since TOPSIS requires giving pre-
used methodology for conditions like the ranking of alternatives ference ratings to alternatives through experts, but it is often difficult
(Kannan et al., 2014; Patil and Kant, 2014; Kabra and Ramesh, 2015; for experts to give precise ratings for alternatives. To overcome this
Prakash and Barua, 2015; Gupta and Barua, 2017; Kumar and Dash, limitation, Fuzzy TOPSIS is suggested where fuzzy numbers are used to
2017). The details of each phase are discussed in further subsections: give preference rating by experts (Chang et al., 2008; Sun, 2010).
The steps of Fuzzy TOPSIS methodology are presented below:
Step 1: Scale mentioned in Table 3 is used to formulate a pair-wise
3.1. Finalization of the criteria for study comparison matrix (kˇij ) which consists of comparison of alternatives with
respect to criteria of study. This study uses linguistic fuzzy scale and follow
A total of thirty-nine GHRM practices categorized into six main the rule that triangular fuzzy numbers lie in the range [0,1] thus doing
categories finalized using literature review and Delphi method. away with the requirement of normalization (Dağdeviren et al., 2009).
Step 2: After obtaining pair-wise comparison matrix this matrix is
3.2. Obtaining weights of GHRM practices using BWM converted into the weighted normalized matrix as shown below:
Vˇ = [vˇij ]m × n where i = 1, 2, 3, ...m and j= 1, 2, 3, ...n and
BWM is used to rank the GHRM practices. The steps as given by
Rezaei (2015, 2016) are explained below: vˇij = kˇij ⊗w
Step 1: Selection of attributes (barriers) for analysis. j (3)
Through literature review and expert opinion, the attributes are Step 3: Next FPIS and FNIS are obtained, where FPIS and FNIS is
finalized for analysis. ‘fuzzy positive ideal’ and the ‘fuzzy negative ideal solution’ respectively:
Step 2: Among finalized attributes best and the worst attribute is
A+ = {v1+, …….., vn+}, where v+
j = {max(vij ) if jεJ ; min(vij ) if jεJ ′}, j = 1….n (4)
finalized by each expert for both main category and subcategory at-
tributes. A− = {v1−, …….., vn−}, where v− = {min(vij ) if jεJ ; max(vij ) if jεJ ′}, j = 1….n
j (5)
Step 3: Next each expert is asked to give preference rating for the
best attribute selected over all other attributes using a scale of 1–9. Step 4: Using equation mentioned below, distance of each solution is
Step 4: After this, preference rating of all attributes with the worst obtained from FPIS and FNIS:
attribute is taken by experts. 1/2
Step 5: Optimized weights (w 1∗, w 2∗, … …. , w n∗) for all the attri- di+ = ⎧∑ j = 1 (vij − vij+)2⎫
n
, i = 1………m
butes is calculated next. ⎨
⎩ ⎬
⎭
The objective is to obtain the weights of attributes so that the 1/2
di− = ⎧∑ j = 1 (vij − vij−)2⎫
n
maximum absolute differences for all j can be minimized for , i = 1………m
⎨
⎩ ⎬
⎭ (6)
{ wB − aBj wj , wj − ajW wW } . This minimax model will be obtained:
Step 5: Closeness coefficient (CCi) for each solution is obtained by
min max { wB − aBj wj , wj − ajW wW }
using the equation below:

s.t.∑ wj = 1 di−
CCi = i = 1… … …m CCi ε (0,1)
j di− + di+ (7)

208
H. Gupta Journal of Environmental Management 226 (2018) 201–216

Table 3 attributes were deleted and one was added thus making it a total of
Linguistic scale for alternatives selection. thirty-nine attributes. These were then grouped into six main categories
for the purpose of analysis.
Linguistic Variables Corresponding Fuzzy Numbers

VL (0, 0, 0.2) 4.3. Calculation of criteria weights using BWM

L (0, 0.2, 0.4)
M (0.2, 0.4, 0.6) After the attributes of GHRM are finalized, the weights of these
H (0.4, 0.6, 0.8)
attributes are calculated using steps shown in section 3.2 of the paper.
VH (0.6, 0.8, 1)
E (0.8, 1, 1) Using panel consensus method, experts were asked to rate the main
criteria on a scale of 1–9. The resultant pair-wise matrix for main ca-
Where VL – “Very Low”, L – “Low”, M – “Medium”, H – “High”, VH – “Very tegory attributes of GHRM is shown in Table 4.
High” and E – “Excellent”. Similar to above, the pair-wise comparison matrix for sub-attributes
associated with each attribute is obtained through experts' opinion. The
corresponding matrices obtained for sub-attributes of GHRM are pre-
sented in Tables 5–10 below.
Step 6: Finally solutions are ranked on the basis of CCi values ob- Next, using equations (2) and (3), the weights of main attributes as
tained. well as sub-attributes of GHRM are calculated and are presented in
Tables 11 and 12.
4. Illustrative application of proposed methodology, results and
implications of the study 4.4. Ranking of the selected manufacturing organizations using Fuzzy
TOPSIS
This section explains the application of three-phase methodology on
case companies selected for the study. The methodology is instrumental Next step in the analysis is the calculation of the rank of the alter-
in presenting a model for selecting best organization on GHRM prac- natives (manufacturing organizations in this case) w.r.t to GHRM
tices. The real world application of the proposed model is helpful in practices. The experts were asked to rate the organizations w.r.t the
proving its validity. GHRM practices using linguistic scale mentioned in Table 3. The re-
sultant fuzzy relationship matrix along with sub-attributes weights is
4.1. Case companies and experts' background mentioned in Table 13.
Next step is to calculate weighted normalized fuzzy matrix as per
For the purpose of the analysis, five manufacturing organizations equation (3) and is presented in Table 14. Also FPIS, A+ and FNIS, A− ,
are taken to evaluate their performance in GHRM practices. All the are determined using equations (4) and (5). FPIS and FNIS in this case
experts were chosen based on the reputation, performance, and number can be defined as v1+ = (1, 1, 1) and v1− = (0, 0, 0) respectively, for
of staff in the organization they are working with and also on the basis benefit criteria and as v1+ = (1, 1, 1) and v1− = (0, 0, 0) for cost cri-
of their experience. The organizations having a minimum of 300 em- teria, but in this case all the attributes are considered benefit because
ployees were selected and HR managers having a minimum of 10 years the aim is to maximize the implementation of GHRM practices in or-
of experience were selected for the study. ganizations, so the values of FPIS and FNIS are taken as per this si-
tuation.
4.2. Finalization of attributes of GHRM Next step is to obtain the closeness coefficient value CCi and a final
ranking of alternatives using equations (6) and (7). The CCi values and
After extensive literature review and series of discussion with ex- ranking of alternatives is shown in Table 15.
perts using Delphi technique, a total of thirty-nine attributes of GHRM
are finalized which are further categorized into six main attribute ca- 4.5. Discussion of the results
tegories. Initially, through literature review, forty-two attributes were
identified; these attributes were put forth to experts for finalization. The attributes weights of GHRM practices are obtained through
After series of discussions with five experts using Delphi technique, four BWM and are presented in Tables 11 and 12. Total six main attributes

Table 4
Main attributes comparison matrix.

BO Green Recruitment Green Training and Green Performance Green Pay and Green Employee Green Management of
and Selection (GRS) Development (GTD) Management System Reward System Empowerment and Organizational Culture
(GPS) (GPR) Involvement (GEI) (GOC)

Best criteria: 6 1 9 4 3 7
Green Training and
Development (GTD)

OW Worst criteria: Green Performance Management System (GPS)

Green Recruitment and Selection (GRS) 2

Green Training and Development (GTD) 9
Green Performance Management System (GPS) 1
Green Pay and Reward System (GPR) 3
Green Employee Empowerment and Involvement (GEI) 4
Green Management of Organizational Culture (GOC) 2

209
H. Gupta Journal of Environmental Management 226 (2018) 201–216

Table 5 were finalized and among them, Green Training and Development
Pairwise comparison for Green Recruitment and Selection sub attributes. (GTD) is ranked first with a criteria weight of 0.487. Green training has
been considered most important variable for environmental manage-
BO GRS1 GRS2 GRS3 GRS4 GRS5 GRS6 GRS7
ment in organizations (Daily et al., 2012; Jabbour et al., 2013a,b).
Best criteria: 1 3 9 8 6 5 2 Technical expertise is seen as prerequisite for implementing environ-
GRS1 mental management practices in an organization (Jabbour et al., 2015).
Moreover, green training also helps managers to acquire green con-
OW Worst criteria: GRS3 tracts and in green purchasing (Teixeira et al., 2016). The companies
tend to become environmentally superior when their green training
GRS1 9
programs are implemented extensively (Teixeira et al., 2012). The
GRS2 4
GRS3 1 second rank is obtained by Green Employee Empowerment and In-
GRS4 2 volvement (GEI) with criteria weight of 0.173. Organizations adopt
GRS5 3 horizontal work structure where employees are empowered to take
GRS6 2 decisions and also express their opinions as and when required
GRS7 5
(Govindarajulu and Daily, 2004). Moreover, organizations are con-
tinuously facing challenges in implementing environmental strategies
due to lack of employee involvement in green activities (Haddockmillar
et al., 2016). The efficiency of environmental management is directly
Table 6
linked to employees' green involvement and it significantly improves,
Pairwise comparison for Green Training and Development sub attributes.
when employees are party to it (Jabbour et al., 2008). Empowerment
BO GTD1 GTD2 GTD3 GTD4 GTD5 GTD6 GTD7 along with employee involvement is essential as it allows employees to
address environmental issues along with top management (Daily et al.,
Best criteria: 1 9 8 7 4 2 3 2012). Empowerment boosts the morale of employees to better parti-
GTD1
cipate in environmental issues due to more independence and this re-
sults in better problem solving and achieving the environmental targets
OW Worst criteria: GRS3
(Govindarajulu and Daily, 2004; Liebowitz, 2010). Next important at-
GTD1 9 tribute of GHRM as per BWM analysis is Green Pay and Reward System
GTD2 1 (GPR) with a criteria weight of 0.129. Renwick et al. (2013) in their
GTD3 2 study on GHRM gave an important conclusion that pay and reward to
GTD4 2 employees performing well on green activities are essential along with
GTD5 3
GTD6 5
green training and employee empowerment in order to achieve overall
GTD7 4 objectives of environmental management. Various forms of rewards and
recognition apart from monetary benefits are being practiced by orga-
nizations to motivate their employees for further working on green
goals like loans for purchasing hybrid vehicles, green cards for dis-
Table 7 counts, appreciation during meetings etc. (Govindarajulu and Daily,
Pairwise comparison of Green Performance Management System sub-attributes. 2004; Brockett, 2006). These rewards and motivations in turn create a
willingness among employees to take environmental initiatives (Ramus,
BO GPS1 GPS2 GPS3 GPS4 GPS5 GPS6
2001).
Best criteria: 1 2 4 5 8 7 Similar to main attributes of GHRM, sub-attributes are also ranked
GPS1 using BWM. Developing exclusive training programs on environmental
management for employees (GTD1) is ranked first. Training of em-
OW Worst criteria: GPS5 ployees on EM is essential as these employees are front-line workers
they can identify various types of waste thus working towards its re-
GPS1 8
GPS2 5
duction. Organizations design and specific training programs for em-
GPS3 3 ployees to equip them with necessary skills to implement EM practices
GPS4 2 is also very essential (Longoni et al., 2016; Masri and Jaaron, 2017).
GPS5 1 Job rotation in green assignments (GTD6) is ranked second among sub-
GPS6 2
attributes. Organizations in developing countries have not fully adopted
green practices in each functional area, there are few departments
where green practices are being adopted and as a result, other em-
ployees are not well accustomed to green practices. So, it is necessary to
Table 8 rotate employees to departments where green practices are being fol-
Pairwise comparison of Green Pay and Reward System sub-attributes. lowed thus enhancing awareness of green practices (Arulrajah et al.,
2016). Employee involvement in problem solving on green issues
BO GPR1 GPR2 GPR3 GPR4 GPR5 GPR6
(GEI3) is ranked third among sub-attributes. Employee involvement
Best criteria: 9 6 1 3 4 7 boosts morale of the employees and they are more aligned with orga-
GPR3 nizations objectives when they are involved in decision making pro-
cesses (Patel, 2014). Higher employee involvement in green issues en-
OW Worst criteria: GPR1 hances the tacit knowledge of the employees and this in turn helps in
better problem solving related to environmental issues and better en-
GPR1 1
GPR2 2
vironmental performance of the organization (Rothenberg, 2003; Boiral
GPR3 9 and Paillé, 2012).
GPR4 4 The manufacturing organizations are ranked on GHRM attributes
GPR5 3 using Fuzzy TOPSIS. Manufacturing organization 4th i.e. MO4 is ranked
GPR6 2
first followed by MO2, MO1, MO5 and MO3 respectively. The results

210
H. Gupta Journal of Environmental Management 226 (2018) 201–216

Table 9 generated by them. Managers are under constant pressure to address

Pairwise comparison of Green Employee Empowerment and Involvement sub- this growing environmental degradation challenge; HR managers are
attributes. also entrusted to contribute towards this cause along with production
and environmental managers. The role of HR practices like training in
BO GEI1 GEI2 GEI3 GEI4 GEI5 GEI6 GEI7
environmental management is widely known in the literature. This
Best criteria: 8 4 1 6 7 9 3 study provides a detailed list of GHRM practices that are beneficial to
GEI3 environmental management. HR managers can work towards im-
plementing these practices in their organization. Further, this study
OW Worst criteria: GEI6 ranks GHRM practices using BWM. The prioritization of GHRM prac-
tices can help managers to know the importance of practices like green
GEI1 2
GEI2 4
training, green employee empowerment, and designing specific training
GEI3 9 programs for employees according to environmental needs etc. and
GEI4 3 work towards their adoption.
GEI5 2 This study presents a novel model for evaluation of organizations on
GEI6 1
certain set of GHRM practices. The managers of other manufacturing
GEI7 3
organizations can also replicate this model in their organizations and
evaluate their position on stated GHRM practices. The model is flexible
to adjust new practices or delete certain practices as per the organiza-
tions objectives, hence can be implemented by organizations other than
Table 10 those used in the present study.
Pairwise comparison for Green Management of Organizational Culture sub-at-
tributes. 4.7. Sensitivity analysis
BO GOC1 GOC2 GOC3 GOC4 GOC5 GOC6
Sensitivity is now widely used by researchers for studies presenting
Best criteria: 2 1 3 7 4 6 a hybrid model in order to confirm the validity of the results and
GOC2 eliminate any chance of biasness by experts (Gupta and Barua, 2017).
To perform sensitivity analysis the criteria obtaining highest weight in
OW Worst criteria: GOC4 BW analysis is varied from 0.1 to 0.9 and consequently weights of all
the attributes are varied. Table 16 represents the variation in weights of
GOC1 5
GOC2 7
all the main attributes when weight of GTD is varied.
GOC3 3 After obtaining weights of main attributes, first step analysis in-
GOC4 1 volves calculating ranking and weights of sub-attributes of GHRM using
GOC5 3 9 different runs. The corresponding sensitivity analysis of sub-attributes
GOC6 2
ranks is presented in Fig. 2.
Next step is to put these sub-attribute weights in Fuzzy TOPSIS
analysis and calculate final ranks for all the manufacturing organiza-
tions for 9 different runs. Fig. 3 presents a sensitivity analysis for
Table 11 manufacturing organizations ranking.
Optimal weights of main attributes of GHRM. Figs. 2 and 3 clearly represents that there is not much variability in
final ranks of sub-attributes and there is no variability in ranks of
Criteria Weights ξL
manufacturing organizations. Thus, the proposed analysis is free from
Green Recruitment and Selection (GRS) 0.086 0.03 any biasness and model is robust.
Green Training and Development (GTD) 0.487
Green Performance Management System (GPS) 0.051 5. Conclusions and scope of future work
Green Pay and Reward System (GPR) 0.129
Green Employee Empowerment and Involvement (GEI) 0.173
Green Management of Organizational Culture (GOC) 0.074
Organizations all over the world are inclined towards reduction in
environmental degradation based on its functioning; literature has also
suggested a significant role of GHRM practices in achieving this ob-
jective. GHRM has this ability to inculcate the mindfulness among its
indicate that MO4 performs best on GHRM attributes considered for the current workforce and also encourage new recruits towards ecological
present study among all the five organizations. improvement and wellbeing. Adopting GHRM practices instill respon-
sibility as well as zeal among employees, train employees and evolve a
4.6. Implications of the study learning as well open culture within the organization where employees
can freely put forth their ideas and experiment towards the greening of
The final results were again presented to the experts for discussion the organization. All this results in effective utilization of resources,
and greater validity. The results were mostly in confirmation with the lesser waste generation, improved work life, improved image of the
experts' opinion and several implications were discussed which are organizations and overall lesser emissions in the environment.
presented as follows: This study identifies thirty-nine attributes of GHRM and bridges an
This study has brought forth thirty-nine attributes or practices of important gap in the literature regarding lack of empirical studies and
GHRM and grouped them into six main categories. This is the first study that too in a developing country. BWM is used to prioritize the GHRM
to provide a comprehensive list of thirty-nine GHRM practices. practices, which is also the first study of its kind. Prioritization of
Organizations are considered as focal to most of the environmental GHRM practices results in important results for HR managers where
problems due to a large amount of industrial waste and pollution green training and development is ranked as the most important GHRM

211
H. Gupta Journal of Environmental Management 226 (2018) 201–216

0.2, 0.4, 0.6

0.2, 0.4, 0.6

0.6, 0.8, 1
0, 0.2, 0.4

0, 0.2, 0.4
Table 12

0.4, 0.6, 0.8

0.4, 0.6, 0.8
Weights of Main and sub-attributes of GHRM.

0.6, 0.8, 1
0.010
GPR6

0.8, 1, 1
0.8, 1, 1
GOC6

0.005
Main attributes Weights Sub-attributes Weights Global Ranking
of main of Sub weights
attributes attributes

Green Recruitment 0.086 GRS1 0.389 0.034 7

and Selection GRS2 0.144 0.012 20

0, 0.2, 0.4
0, 0.2, 0.4
…

…
…
…
…
…
…

0, 0, 0.2
0.8, 1, 1
0.8, 1, 1
(GRS) GRS3 0.038 0.003 38

GOC5

0.008
GRS4 0.054 0.005 35
GRS5 0.072 0.006 31
GRS6 0.086 0.007 29
GRS7 0.216 0.019 16

…
…
…
…
…
…

0, 0.2, 0.4

0.6, 0.8, 1
0.6, 0.8, 1
Green Training 0.487 GTD1 0.392 0.191 1

0.8, 1, 1

0.8, 1, 1
and GTD2 0.040 0.020 15

GOC4

0.004
Development GTD3 0.053 0.026 11

0.6, 0.8, 1
0, 0.2, 0.4
0, 0.2, 0.4
(GTD) GTD4 0.060 0.029 9

0, 0, 0.2

0, 0, 0.2
GTD5 0.105 0.051 6

GTD3

0.026

0.2, 0.4, 0.6

GTD6 0.210 0.102 2

0.6, 0.8, 1
0, 0.2, 0.4

0, 0.2, 0.4
GTD7 0.140 0.068 4

0.8, 1, 1
GOC3

0.011
Green Performance 0.051 GPS1 0.436 0.022 13
Management GPS2 0.235 0.012 22

0.4, 0.6, 0.8

0.4, 0.6, 0.8

0.6, 0.8, 1
0.6, 0.8, 1
System (GPS) GPS3 0.117 0.006 32

0.8, 1, 1
GPS4 0.094 0.005 34

GTD2

0.020

0.2, 0.4, 0.6

0.2, 0.4, 0.6

GPS5 0.050 0.003 39

0.6, 0.8, 1
0, 0.2, 0.4

0.8, 1, 1
GPS6 0.067 0.003 37

GOC2

0.029
Green Pay and 0.129 GPR1 0.051 0.007 30
Reward GPR2 0.086 0.011 23

0.6, 0.8, 1
System (GPR) GPR3 0.487 0.063 5

0.8, 1, 1
0.8, 1, 1
0.8, 1, 1
0.8, 1, 1
GPR4 0.173 0.022 12

GTD1

0.191
GPR5 0.129 0.017 17

0.4, 0.6, 0.8

0.4, 0.6, 0.8
0.4, 0.6, 0.8
0, 0.2, 0.4
GPR6 0.074 0.010 26

0, 0, 0.2
Green Employee 0.173 GEI1 0.062 0.011 25

GOC1

0.016
Empowerment GEI2 0.125 0.022 14
0.2, 0.4, 0.6

0.4, 0.6, 0.8

0.4, 0.6, 0.8
0.2, 0.4, 0.6
and GEI3 0.448 0.077 3
0, 0, 0.2
Involvement GEI4 0.083 0.014 19

0.019
GRS7

(GEI) GEI5 0.071 0.012 21

0.4, 0.6, 0.8

0.4, 0.6, 0.8

0.6, 0.8, 1
0, 0.2, 0.4
GEI6 0.044 0.008 28

0, 0, 0.2
GEI7 0.166 0.029 10

0.029
GEI7
Green 0.074 GOC1 0.220 0.016 18
0.4, 0.6, 0.8

0.4, 0.6, 0.8

0, 0.2, 0.4

Management GOC2 0.398 0.029 8

0, 0, 0.2
0.8, 1, 1

of GOC3 0.147 0.011 24

0.007
GRS6

0.4, 0.6, 0.8

Organizational GOC4 0.051 0.004 36

0.6, 0.8, 1

0.6, 0.8, 1
0, 0.2, 0.4

0.8, 1, 1
Culture (GOC) GOC5 0.110 0.008 27

0.008
GOC6 0.073 0.005 33
GEI6
0.2, 0.4, 0.6
0, 0.2, 0.4

0.8, 1, 1
0, 0, 0.2
0, 0, 0.2

0.2, 0.4, 0.6

0.006
GRS5

0.6, 0.8, 1

0.6, 0.8, 1
0.6, 0.8, 1
0.6, 0.8, 1

practice; employees need to be trained regarding various green prac-

0.012
GEI5
Fuzzy direct comparison matrix for manufacturing organizations alternatives.

tices being adopted by organizations. Training in specific areas like

0.2, 0.4, 0.6
0.2, 0.4, 0.6

0.2, 0.4, 0.6

waste management, recycling, energy management and green pur-

0.6, 0.8, 1

0.6, 0.8, 1

chasing can greatly benefit organization to achieve environmental

0.4, 0.6, 0.8
0.005
GRS4

0.6, 0.8, 1

0.6, 0.8, 1
0, 0.2, 0.4

management goals. Moreover, HR managers need to switch to online

0, 0, 0.2

training modules, more of digitization rather than traditional pen-paper

0.014
GEI4

module to save resources and also inculcate a sense of green manage-

0.2, 0.4, 0.6

0.4, 0.6, 0.8

ment in employees. Employee empowerment and involvement also

0.6, 0.8, 1

0.6, 0.8, 1
0, 0.2, 0.4

0.4, 0.6, 0.8

emerged as an important GHRM practice, employees' involvement in

0.6, 0.8, 1

0, 0.2, 0.4
0.003
GRS3

0.8, 1, 1
0, 0, 0.2

solving environmental problems will result in better sense of respon-

0.077
GEI3

sibility towards organizations green goals. This process will result in

enhanced commitment and will also develop a new organizational
0.4, 0.6, 0.8
0.4, 0.6, 0.8

culture where employees are party to each and every environmental

0, 0.2, 0.4
0.8, 1, 1
0, 0, 0.2

problem. Final phase of three-phase methodology is dedicated to

0.6, 0.8, 1
0.6, 0.8, 1

0.6, 0.8, 1
0.8, 1, 1
0.8, 1, 1
0.012
GRS2

evaluating manufacturing organizations performance w. r.t these

0.022
GEI2

GHRM practices. Five organizations were involved in the study and

they were ranked according to their performance on GHRM practices
0.2, 0.4, 0.6

using Fuzzy TOPSIS. This methodology can act as a stepping stone for
0.4, 0.6, 0.8
0.6, 0.8, 1
0.6, 0.8, 1
0, 0.2, 0.4

0.6, 0.8, 1
0, 0.2, 0.4
0.8, 1, 1

other organizations to measure their performance on various GHRM

0.8, 1, 1
0, 0, 0.2
0.034
GRS1

0.011

practices.
GEI1

Like any other study, this study also suffers from certain limitations.
First, this study is based on case study of five manufacturing organi-
Table 13

Weights

Weights

zations and involves five experts only. This study can be expanded by
MO1
MO2
MO3
MO4
MO5

MO1
MO2
MO3
MO4
MO5

taking more organizations and involving more experts. The study can

212
 H. Gupta

Table 14
Weighted fuzzy evaluation matrix for manufacturing organizations.

GRS1 GRS2 GRS3 GRS4 GRS5 GRS6 GRS7 GTD1

MO1 (0.000, 0.007, 0.013) (0.010, 0.012, 0.012) (0.000, 0.001, 0.001) (0.003, 0.004, 0.005) (0.000, 0.001, 0.002) (0.003, 0.004, 0.006) (0.004, 0.007, 0.011) (0.153, 0.191, 0.191)
MO2 (0.027, 0.034, 0.034) (0.000, 0.000, 0.002) (0.002, 0.003, 0.003) (0.001, 0.002, 0.003) (0.000, 0.000, 0.001) (0.000, 0.001, 0.003) (0.000, 0.000, 0.004) (0.153, 0.191, 0.191)
MO3 (0.007, 0.013, 0.020) (0.000, 0.002, 0.005) (0.001, 0.001, 0.002) (0.001, 0.002, 0.003) (0.000, 0.000, 0.001) (0.000, 0.000, 0.001) (0.007, 0.011, 0.015) (0.153, 0.191, 0.191)
MO4 (0.020, 0.027, 0.034) (0.005, 0.007, 0.010) (0.002, 0.003, 0.003) (0.003, 0.004, 0.005) (0.005, 0.006, 0.006) (0.006, 0.007, 0.007) (0.007, 0.011, 0.015) (0.153, 0.191, 0.191)
MO5 (0.020, 0.027, 0.034) (0.005, 0.007, 0.010) (0.001, 0.002, 0.003) (0.001, 0.002, 0.003) (0.001, 0.002, 0.004) (0.003, 0.004, 0.006) (0.004, 0.007, 0.011) (0.115, 0.153, 0.191)
v1+ v1+ = (1, 1, 1) v1+ = (1, 1, 1) v1+ = (1, 1, 1) v1+ = (1, 1, 1) v1+ = (1, 1, 1) v1+ = (1, 1, 1) v1+ = (1, 1, 1) v1+ = (1, 1, 1)
v1− v1+ = (0, 0, 0) v1− = (0, 0, 0) v1− = (0, 0, 0) v1− = (0, 0, 0) v1− = (0, 0, 0) v1− = (0, 0, 0) v1− = (0, 0, 0) v1− = (0, 0, 0)

GTD2 GTD3 … GPR6 GEI1 GEI2 GEI3 GEI4

MO1 (0.016, 0.020, 0.020) (0.000, 0.000, 0.005) … (0.000, 0.002, 0.004) (0.000, 0.002, 0.004) (0.013, 0.017, 0.022) (0.000, 0.000, 0.015) (0.009, 0.011, 0.014)
MO2 (0.008, 0.012, 0.016) (0.000, 0.005, 0.010) … (0.002, 0.004, 0.006) (0.004, 0.006, 0.009) (0.013, 0.017, 0.022) (0.046, 0.062, 0.077) (0.006, 0.009, 0.011)
MO3 (0.012, 0.016, 0.020) (0.000, 0.005, 0.010) … (0.000, 0.002, 0.004) (0.006, 0.009, 0.011) (0.017, 0.022, 0.022) (0.031, 0.046, 0.062) (0.000, 0.000, 0.003)

213
MO4 (0.012, 0.016, 0.020) (0.015, 0.020, 0.026) … (0.006, 0.008, 0.010) (0.009, 0.011, 0.011) (0.017, 0.022, 0.022) (0.062, 0.077, 0.077) (0.009, 0.011, 0.014)
MO5 (0.008, 0.012, 0.016) (0.000, 0.000, 0.005) … (0.002, 0.004, 0.006) (0.000, 0.000, 0.002) (0.013, 0.017, 0.022) (0.000, 0.015, 0.031) (0.000, 0.003, 0.006)
v1+ v1+ = (1, 1, 1) v1+ = (1, 1, 1) … v1+ = (1, 1, 1) v1+ = (1, 1, 1) v1+ = (1, 1, 1) v1+ = (1, 1, 1) v1+ = (1, 1, 1)
v1− v1− = (0, 0, 0) v1− = (0, 0, 0) … v1− = (0, 0, 0) v1− = (0, 0, 0) v1− = (0, 0, 0) v1− = (0, 0, 0) v1− = (0, 0, 0)

GEI5 GEI6 GEI7 GOC1 GOC2 GOC3 GOC4 GOC5 GOC6

MO1 (0.007, 0.010, 0.012) (0.000, 0.002, 0.003) (0.011, 0.017, 0.023) (0.000, 0.003, 0.007) (0.000, 0.006, 0.012) (0.000, 0.002, 0.004) (0.000, 0.001, 0.002) (0.000, 0.002, 0.003) (0.004, 0.005, 0.005)
MO2 (0.002, 0.005, 0.007) (0.005, 0.006, 0.008) (0.000, 0.000, 0.006) (0.000, 0.000, 0.003) (0.018, 0.024, 0.029) (0.009, 0.011, 0.011) (0.003, 0.004, 0.004) (0.000, 0.002, 0.003) (0.004, 0.005, 0.005)
MO3 (0.007, 0.010, 0.012) (0.006, 0.008, 0.008) (0.000, 0.006, 0.011) (0.007, 0.010, 0.013) (0.006, 0.012, 0.018) (0.000, 0.002, 0.004) (0.002, 0.003, 0.004) (0.000, 0.000, 0.002) (0.002, 0.003, 0.004)
MO4 (0.007, 0.010, 0.012) (0.005, 0.006, 0.008) (0.011, 0.017, 0.023) (0.007, 0.010, 0.013) (0.0024, 0.029, 0.029) (0.007, 0.009, 0.011) (0.002, 0.003, 0.004) (0.007, 0.008, 0.008) (0.002, 0.003, 0.004)
MO5 (0.007, 0.010, 0.012) (0.003, 0.005, 0.006) (0.017, 0.023, 0.029) (0.007, 0.010, 0.013) (0.006, 0.012, 0.018) (0.002, 0.004, 0.007) (0.003, 0.004, 0.004) (0.007, 0.008, 0.008) (0.003, 0.004, 0.005)
v1+ v1+ = (1, 1, 1) v1+ = (1, 1, 1) v1+ = (1, 1, 1) v1+ = (1, 1, 1) v1+ = (1, 1, 1) v1+ = (1, 1, 1) v1+ = (1, 1, 1) v1+ = (1, 1, 1) v1+ = (1, 1, 1)
v1− v1− = (0, 0, 0) v1− = (0, 0, 0) v1− = (0, 0, 0) v1− = (0, 0, 0) v1− = (0, 0, 0) v1− = (0, 0, 0) v1− = (0, 0, 0) v1− = (0, 0, 0) v1− = (0, 0, 0)
Journal of Environmental Management 226 (2018) 201–216
H. Gupta Journal of Environmental Management 226 (2018) 201–216

Table 15 also use statistical methods like SEM to validate the results. Also, only
Final ranking of manufacturing organizations. The analysis results of Fuzzy manufacturing organizations were taken up for the study as they are
TOPSIS show that manufacturing organization 4 (MO4) is ranked first in GHRM major contributors to environmental degradation but a comparative
practices. study with service organizations can also give better results. Other
MCDM (Multi Criteria Decision Making) techniques like VIKOR
D+ D- Ci Rank
(VlseKriterijuska Optimizacija I Komoromisno Resenje), ELECTRE
MO1 38.428 0.599 0.015 3 (Elimination and Choice Expressing Reality), ISM (Interpretive
MO2 38.390 0.634 0.016 2 Structural Modeling) etc. can be used to compare the results of BWM
MO3 38.540 0.492 0.013 5 with them.
MO4 38.167 0.845 0.022 1
MO5 38.452 0.577 0.015 4

Table 16
Variation in weights value for all main attributes after varying GTD weight value.

Attributes of GHRM Normalized Weight Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Run 4 Run 5 Run 6 Run 7 Run 8 Run 9

GTD 0.487 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
GEI 0.173 0.303 0.269 0.235 0.202 0.168 0.135 0.101 0.067 0.034
GPR 0.129 0.227 0.202 0.177 0.151 0.126 0.101 0.076 0.050 0.025
GRS 0.086 0.151 0.135 0.118 0.101 0.084 0.067 0.050 0.034 0.017
GOC 0.074 0.130 0.115 0.101 0.087 0.072 0.058 0.043 0.029 0.014
GPS 0.051 0.089 0.079 0.069 0.059 0.049 0.040 0.030 0.020 0.010

Sensi ty Analysis of Sub a ributes

45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

Run 1 (0.1) Run 2 (0.2) Run 3 (0.3) Run 4 (0.4) Run 5 (0.5)
Run 6 (0.6) Run 7 (0.7) Run 8 (0.8) Run 9 (0.9)

Fig. 2. Sensitivity analysis for sub-attributes ranks.

Sensitivity Analysis for manufacturing organizations

MO1 MO2 MO3 MO4 MO5

Normalized
5
Run 9 (0.9) 4 Run 1 (0.1)
3
Run 8 (0.8) 2 Run 2 (0.2)
1
0
Run 7 (0.7) Run 3 (0.3)

Run 6 (0.6) Run 4 (0.4)

Run 5 (0.5)

Fig. 3. Sensitivity analysis for manufacturing organizations ranks.

214
H. Gupta Journal of Environmental Management 226 (2018) 201–216

References the stages of environmental management: methodological triangulation applied to

companies in Brazil. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 21 (7), 1049–1089.
Jabbour, C.J.C., Teixeira, A.A., Jabbour, A.B.L.D.S., 2013b. Environmental training in
Abadi, F., Sahebi, I., Arab, A., Alavi, A., Karachi, H., 2018. Application of best-worst organizations with ISO 14001 certification: a multiple case study and identification of
method in evaluation of medical tourism development strategy. Decis. Sci. Lett. 7 (1), co-evolution with environmental management. Production 23 (1), 80–94.
77–86. Jackson, S.E., Seo, J., 2010. The greening of strategic HRM scholarship. Org. Manag. J. 7
Ahmad, S., 2015. Green human resource management: policies and practices. Cogent (4), 278–290.
Business Manag. 2 (1), 1030817. Jackson, S.E., Renwick, D.W., Jabbour, C.J., Muller-Camen, M., 2011. State-of-the-art and
Arulrajah, A.A., Opatha, H.H.D.N.P., Nawaratne, N.N.J., 2016. Green human resource future directions for green human resource management: introduction to the special
management practices: a review. Sri Lankan J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 5 (1). issue. Ger. J. Human Resource Manag. 25 (2), 99–116.
Bhattacharya, A., Mohapatra, P., Kumar, V., Dey, P.K., Brady, M., Tiwari, M.K., Jiang, K., Lepak, D.P., Hu, J., Baer, J.C., 2012. How does human resource management
Nudurupati, S.S., 2014. Green supply chain performance measurement using fuzzy influence organizational outcomes? A meta-analytic investigation of mediating me-
ANP-based balanced scorecard: a collaborative decision-making approach. Prod. chanisms. Acad. Manag. J. 55 (6), 1264–1294.
Plann. Contr. 25 (8), 698–714. Johnson, D., Walck, C., 2004. Certified success: integrating sustainability into corporate
Bhushan, A.K., MacKenzie, J.C., 1994. Environmental leadership plus total quality management systems. J. For. 102 (5), 32–39.
management equals continuous improvement. In: Willig, J.T. (Ed.), Environmental Kabra, G., Ramesh, A., 2015. Analyzing drivers and barriers of coordination in humani-
TQM, second ed. McGraw-Hill, New York, pp. 72–93. tarian supply chain management under fuzzy environment. Benchmark Int. J. 22 (4),
Boiral, O., Paillé, P., 2012. Organizational citizenship behaviour for the environment: 559–587.
measurement and validation. J. Bus. Ethics 109 (4), 431–445. Kannan, D., de Sousa Jabbour, A.B.L., Jabbour, C.J.C., 2014. Selecting green suppliers
Botelho, A., 2012. The impact of education and training on compliance behavior and based on GSCM practices: using fuzzy TOPSIS applied to a Brazilian electronics
waste generation in European private healthcare facilities. J. Environ. Manag. 98, company. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 233 (2), 432–447.
5–10. Kapil, P., 2015. Green HRM-Engaging Human Resource in reducing carbon footprint and
Brockett, J., 2006. Change Agents’, People Management, 23rdNovember. pp. 18–19. enhancing environment sustainability: a case study based approach. Int. J. Eng.
Chang, P.C., Liu, C.H., Lai, R.K., 2008. A fuzzy case-based reasoning model for sales Technol. Sci. Res. 2, 5–14.
forecasting in print circuit board industries. Expert Syst. Appl. 34 (3), 2049–2058. Kumar, A., Dash, M.K., 2017. Using fuzzy Delphi and generalized fuzzy TOPSIS to eval-
Collins, C.J., Clark, K.D., 2003. Strategic human resource practices, top management uate technological service flexibility dimensions of internet malls. Global J. Flex.
team social networks, and firm performance: the role of human resource practices in Systems Manag. 18 (2), 153–161.
creating organizational competitive advantage. Acad. Manag. J. 46 (6), 740–751. Lai, Y.J., Liu, T.Y., Hwang, C.L., 1994. Topsis for MODM. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 76 (3),
Dağdeviren, M., Yavuz, S., Kılınç, N., 2009. Weapon selection using the AHP and TOPSIS 486–500.
methods under fuzzy environment. Expert Syst. Appl. 36 (4), 8143–8151. Lashley, C., 2012. Empowerment: HR Strategies for Service Excellence. Routledge,
Daily, B.F., Huang, S.C., 2001. Achieving sustainability through attention to human re- London.
source factors in environmental management. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 21 (12), Liebowitz, J., 2010. The role of HR in achieving a sustainability culture. J. Sustain. Dev. 3
1539–1552. (4), 50.
Daily, B.F., Bishop, J.W., Massoud, J.A., 2012. The role of training and empowerment in Lober, D.J., 1996. Evaluating the environmental performance of corporations. J. Manag.
environmental performance: a study of the Mexican maquiladora industry. Int. J. Issues 184–205.
Oper. Prod. Manag. 32 (5), 631–647. Longoni, A., Luzzini, D., Guerci, M., 2016. Deploying environmental management across
Davis, M.C., Challenger, R., 2013. Environmentally sustainable work behavior. Wiley functions: the relationship between green human resource management and green
Encycl. Manag. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118785317.weom110022. supply chain management. J. Bus. Ethics 1–15.
del Brío, J.Á., Fernandez, E., Junquera, B., 2007. Management and employee involvement Mandip, G., 2012. Green HRM: people management commitment to environmental sus-
in achieving an environmental action-based competitive advantage: an empirical tainability. Res. J. Recent Sci. 2277, 2502.
study. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 18 (4), 491–522. Margaretha, M., Saragih, S., 2013. Developing new corporate culture through green
Ehnert, I., 2009. Sustainable Human Resource Management. Springer, London. human resource practice. In: InternationalConference on Business, Economics, and
Gholami, H., Rezaei, G., Saman, M.Z.M., Sharif, S., Zakuan, N., 2016. State-of-the-art Accounting. Bangkok -Thailand.
Green HRM System: sustainability in the sports center in Malaysia using a multi- Marquis, C., Jackson, S.E., Li, Y., 2015. Building sustainable organizations in China.
methods approach and opportunities for future research. J. Clean. Prod. 124, Manag. Organ. Rev. 11 (3), 427–440.
142–163. Masri, H.A., Jaaron, A.A., 2017. Assessing green human resources management practices in
Govindarajulu, N., Daily, B.F., 2004. Motivating employees for environmental improve- Palestinian manufacturing context: an empirical study. J. Clean. Prod. 143, 474–489.
ment. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 104 (4), 364–372. Milkovich, G.T., Boudreau, J.W., 2000. Administracao de recursos humanos. Atlas, Sao
Guerci, M., Longoni, A., Luzzini, D., 2016. Translating stakeholder pressures into en- Paulo.
vironmental performance–the mediating role of green HRM practices. Int. J. Hum. Mir, M.A., Ghazvinei, P.T., Sulaiman, N.M.N., Basri, N.E.A., Saheri, S., Mahmood, N.Z.,
Resour. Manag. 27 (2), 262–289. Aghamohammadi, N., 2016. Application of TOPSIS and VIKOR improved versions in
Gupta, H., 2018. Evaluating service quality of airline industry using hybrid best worst a multi criteria decision analysis to develop an optimized municipal solid waste
method and VIKOR. J. Air Transport. Manag. 68, 35–47. management model. J. Environ. Manag. 166, 109–115.
Gupta, H., Barua, M.K., 2016. Identifying enablers of technological innovation for Indian Mishra, P., 2017. Green human resource management: a framework for sustainable or-
MSMEs using best–worst multi criteria decision making method. Technol. Forecast. ganizational development in an emerging economy. Int. J. Organ. Anal. Vol. 25 (5),
Soc. Change 107, 69–79. 762–788.
Gupta, H., Barua, M.K., 2017. Supplier selection among SMEs on the basis of their green Mokhtar, N.M., Musa, N.D., Hussin, A., 2016. The implementation of organizational green
innovation ability using BWM and fuzzy TOPSIS. J. Clean. Prod. 152, 242–258. culture in higher educational institution. In: In Regional Conference on Science,
Haddock-Millar, J., Sanyal, C., Müller-Camen, M., 2016. Green human resource man- Technology and Social Sciences (RCSTSS 2014). Springer, Singapore, pp. 321–330.
agement: a comparative qualitative case study of a United States multinational cor- Molina-Azorín, J.F., Claver-Cortés, E., Pereira-Moliner, J., Tarí, J.J., 2009. Environmental
poration. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 27 (2), 192–211. practices and firm performance: an empirical analysis in the Spanish hotel industry.
Harris, L.C., Crane, A., 2002. The greening of organizational culture: management views J. Clean. Prod. 17 (5), 516–524.
on the depth, degree and diffusion of change. J. Organ. Change Manag. 15 (3), Muniandi, T., Nasruddin, E., 2015. Green Recruiting to attract and retain top talent: the
214–234. significance of video interview for the manufacturing industry in Malaysia. In:
Hwang, C.L., Yoon, K., 1981. Multiple criteria decision making. Lect. Notes Econ. Math. Proceedings of the Conferenceon Green Human Resource Management.
Syst. Nejati, M., Rabiei, S., Jabbour, C.J.C., 2017. Envisioning the invisible: understanding the
Jabbar, M.H., Abid, M., 2014. GHRM: motivating employees towards organizational synergy between green human resource management and green supply chain man-
environmental performance. Magn. Res. Rep. 2, 267–278. agement in manufacturing firms in Iran in light of the moderating effect of employees'
Jabbour, C.J.C., 2011. How green are HRM practices, organizational culture, learning and resistance to change. J. Clean. Prod. 168, 163–172.
teamwork? A Brazilian study. Ind. Commer. Train. 43 (2), 98–105. O'Donohue, W., Torugsa, N., 2016. The moderating effect of ‘Green’HRM on the asso-
Jabbour, C.J.C., 2013. Environmental training in organisations: From a literature review ciation between proactive environmental management and financial performance in
to a framework for future research. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 74, 144–155. small firms. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 27 (2), 239–261.
Jabbour, C.J.C., de Sousa Jabbour, A.B.L., 2016. Green human resource management and Opatha, P.H., 2013. Green human resource management: A simplified introduction. 01
green supply chain management: linking two emerging agendas. J. Clean. Prod. 112, (01), 11–21.
1824–1833. Paillé, P., Mejía-Morelos, J.H., 2014. Antecedents of pro-environmental behaviours at
Jabbour, C.J.C., de Sousa Jabbour, A.B.L., Govindan, K., Teixeira, A.A., de Souza Freitas, work: the moderating influence of psychological contract breach. J. Environ. Psychol.
W.R., 2013a. Environmental management and operational performance in auto- 38, 124–131.
motive companies in Brazil: the role of human resource management and lean Patel, N.P., 2014. Green HR: a paradigm Shift in human resource management philo-
manufacturing. J. Clean. Prod. 47, 129–140. sophy. Braz. Online J. 2, 10–15.
Jabbour, C.J.C., Jugend, D., de Sousa Jabbour, A.B.L., Gunasekaran, A., Latan, H., 2015. Patil, S.K., Kant, R., 2014. A fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS framework for ranking the solutions of
Green product development and performance of Brazilian firms: measuring the role Knowledge Management adoption in Supply Chain to overcome its barriers. Expert
of human and technical aspects. J. Clean. Prod. 87, 442–451. Syst. Appl. 41 (2), 679–693.
Jabbour, C.J.C., Santos, F.C.A., Nagano, M.S., 2008. Environmental management system Pinzone, M., Guerci, M., Lettieri, E., Redman, T., 2016. Progressing in the change journey
and human resource practices: is there a link between them in four Brazilian com- towards sustainability in healthcare: the role of ‘Green’HRM. J. Clean. Prod. 122,
panies? J. Clean. Prod. 16 (17), 1922–1925. 201–211.
Jabbour, C.J.C., Santos, F.C.A., Nagano, M.S., 2010. Contributions of HRM throughout Prakash, C., Barua, M.K., 2015. Integration of AHP-TOPSIS method for prioritizing the

215
H. Gupta Journal of Environmental Management 226 (2018) 201–216

solutions of reverse logistics adoption to overcome its barriers under fuzzy environ- Sun, C.C., 2010. A performance evaluation model by integrating fuzzy AHP and fuzzy
ment. J. Manuf. Syst. 37, 599–615. TOPSIS methods. Expert Syst. Appl. 37 (12), 7745–7754.
Prasad, R.S., 2013. Green HRM-Partner in sustainable competitive growth. J. Manag. Sci. Tang, G., Chen, Y., Jiang, Y., Paillé, P., Jia, J., 2018. Green human resource management
Technol. 1 (1), 15–18. practices: scale development and validity. Asia Pac. J. Hum. Resour. 56 (1), 31–55.
Ragas, S.F.P., Ragas, S.F.P., Tantay, F.M.A., Tantay, F.M.A., Chua, L.J.C., Chua, L.J.C., Tapamoy, D., 2008. Performance appraisal and management: concepts, antecedents and
Sunio, C.M.C., 2017. Green lifestyle moderates GHRM's impact on job performance. implication straining and green learning on the firm performance: conceptual paper.
Int. J. Prod. Perform. Manag. 66 (7), 857–872. Int. J. Appl. Res. 1 (12), 951–953.
Ramasamy, A., Inore, I., Sauna, R., 2017. A study on implications of implementing green Tariq, S., Jan, F.A., Ahmad, M.S., 2016. Green employee empowerment: a systematic
HRM in the corporate bodies with special reference to developing nations. Int. J. Bus. literature review on state-of-art in green human resource management. Qual.
Manag. 12 (9), 117. Quantity 50 (1), 237–269.
Ramus, C.A., 2001. Organizational support for employees: encouraging creative ideas for Teixeira, A.A., Jabbour, C.J.C., de Sousa Jabbour, A.B.L., 2012. Relationship between
environmental sustainability. Calif. Manag. Rev. 43 (3), 85–105. green management and environmental training in companies located in Brazil: a
Ramus, C.A., Steger, U., 2000. The roles of supervisory support behaviors and environ- theoretical framework and case studies. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 140 (1), 318–329.
mental policy in employee “Ecoinitiatives” at leading-edge European companies. Teixeira, A.A., Jabbour, C.J.C., de Sousa Jabbour, A.B.L., Latan, H., de Oliveira, J.H.C.,
Acad. Manag. J. 43 (4), 605–626. 2016. Green training and green supply chain management: evidence from Brazilian
Ren, S., Tang, G., Jackson, S.E., 2017. Green human resource management research in firms. J. Clean. Prod. 116, 170–176.
emergence: a review and future directions. Asia Pac. J. Manag. https://doi.org/10. Tung, A., Baird, K., Schoch, H., 2014. The relationship between organisational factors and
1007/s10490-017-9532-1. the effectiveness of environmental management. J. Environ. Manag. 144, 186–196.
Renwick, D.W., Redman, T., Maguire, S., 2013. Green human resource management: a Ullah, M.M., 2017. Integrating environmental sustainability into human resources man-
review and research agenda. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 15 (1), 1–14. agement: a comprehensive review on green human resources management (green
Renwick, D., Redman, T., Maguire, S., 2008. Green HRM: a Review, Process Model, and HRM) practices. Econ. Manag. 4 (1), 6–22.
Research Agenda 1. University of Sheffield Management School Discussion Paper, pp. van de Kaa, G., Kamp, L., Rezaei, J., 2017a. Selection of biomass thermochemical con-
1–46. version technology in The Netherlands: a best worst method approach. J. Clean. Prod.
Rezaei, J., 2015. Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method. Omega 53, 49–57. 166, 32–39.
Rezaei, J., 2016. Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method: some properties and a van de Kaa, G., Scholten, D., Rezaei, J., Milchram, C., 2017b. The battle between battery
linear model. Omega 64, 126–130. and fuel cell powered electric vehicles: a BWM approach. Energies 10 (11), 1707.
Rezaei, J., Kothadiya, O., Tavasszy, L., Kroesen, M., 2018. Quality assessment of airline Wang, M., Sun, Y., Sweetapple, C., 2017. Optimization of storage tank locations in an
baggage handling systems using SERVQUAL and BWM. Tourism Manag. 66, 85–93. urban stormwater drainage system using a two-stage approach. J. Environ. Manag.
Rezaei, J., Nispeling, T., Sarkis, J., Tavasszy, L., 2016. A supplier selection life cycle 204, 31–38.
approach integrating traditional and environmental criteria using the best worst Wang, W., Dong, C., Dong, W., Yang, C., Ju, T., Huang, L., Ren, Z., 2016. The design and
method. J. Clean. Prod. 135, 577–588. implementation of risk assessment model for hazard installations based on AHP–FCE
Rothenberg, S., 2003. Knowledge content and worker participation in environmental method: a case study of Nansi Lake Basin. Ecol. Inf. 36, 162–171.
management at NUMMI. J. Manag. Stud. 40 (7), 1783–1802. Willness, C.R., Jones, D.A., 2013. Corporate environmental sustainability and employee
Salimi, N., Rezaei, J., 2018. Evaluating firms' R&D performance using best worst method. recruitment: leveraging the ‘green’ business practices to attract talent. In: Huffman,
Eval. Progr. Plann. 66, 147–155. A.H., Klein, S.R. (Eds.), Green Organizations: Driving Change with I-O Psychology.
Scholz, M., Franz, M., Hinz, O., 2017. Effects of decision space information on MAUT- Routledge, Hove, pp. 231–250.
based systems that support purchase decision processes. Decis. Support Syst. 97, Yong, J.Y., Mohd-Yusoff, Y., 2016. Studying the influence of strategic human resource
43–57. competencies on the adoption of green human resource management practices. Ind.
Sharma, R., Gupta, N., 2015, January. Green HRM: an innovative approach to environ- Commerc. Train. 48 (8), 416–422.
mental sustainability. In: In Proceeding of the Twelfth AIMS International Conference Yusliza, M.Y., Othman, N.Z., Jabbour, C.J.C., 2017. Deciphering the implementation of
on Management. 2–5 January, Calicut, India, pp. 825–830. green human resource management in an emerging economy. J. Manag. Dev. 36 (10),
Shen, J., Dumont, J., Deng, X., 2016. Employees' perceptions of green HRM and non- 1230–1246.
green employee work outcomes: the social identity and stakeholder perspectives. Zibarras, L.D., Coan, P., 2015. HRM practices used to promote pro-environmental beha-
Group Organ. Manag 1059601116664610. vior: a UK survey. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 26 (16), 2121–2142.
Subramoniam, R., Huisingh, D., Chinnam, R.B., Subramoniam, S., 2013. Remanufacturing Zoogah, D.B., 2011. The dynamics of Green HRM behaviors: a cognitive social informa-
Decision-Making Framework (RDMF): research validation using the analytical hier- tion processing approach. Ger. J. Human Resource Manag. 25 (2), 117–139.
archical process. J. Clean. Prod. 40, 212–220.

216