The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/0143-7720.htm

Do green HRM practices GHRM

practices and
influence employees’ employees’
environmental performance? OCBE

Zahid Hameed
Department of Management Sciences,
Khwaja Fareed University of Engineering and Information Technology, Received 31 August 2019
Rahim Yar Khan, Pakistan Revised 29 December 2019
Accepted 30 December 2019
Ikram Ullah Khan
Institute of Management Sciences, University of Science and Technology Bannu,
Bannu, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan
Tahir Islam
School of economics and management, Tongji University, Shanghai, China
Zaryab Sheikh
Nottingham Business School, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, UK, and
Rana Muhammad Naeem
Department of Business Administration, Sukkur IBA University, Sindh, Pakistan

Abstract
Purpose – Recent research has demonstrated an increasing awareness among business communities about
the importance of environmental concerns. Green human resource management (GHRM) has become a
crucial business strategy for organizations because the human resource department can play a key role in
going “green.” This study tests an integrative model incorporating the indirect effects of GHRM practices
on employee organizational citizenship behavior toward environment (OCBE), through green employee
empowerment. Moreover, this study investigates the moderating effect of individual green values on
OCBE. Design/methodology/approach – Using a paper–pencil survey, we collected multisource data from
365 employees and their immediate supervisors from Pakistan.
Findings – The results of structural regression revealed that GHRM has a significant indirect effect on
OCBE through green employee empowerment. The results also indicated that individual green values
moderated the positive relationship between green employee empowerment and OCBE.
Practical implications – Organizations should appropriately appraise workers’ green behavior and align
their behavior to pay and promotion. Organizations should also encourage and motivate employees to be
engaged in green activities and contribute to environmental management.
Originality/value – This study suggests that green employee empowerment and individual green values are
important factors that influence the relationship between GHRM and employees’ OCBE, and it empirically
analyzes these proposed relationships in a developing country context.
Keywords GHRM, Green employee empowerment, Individual green values, OCBE
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
The growing worldwide interest in environmentalism has arisen from specific treaties to
combat environmental change (Pinzone et al., 2016; Latan et al., 2018; Jabbour et al.,
2013; Fernando et al., 2019; Hartmann and Vachon, 2018; Renwick et al., 2013; Venturelli et
al., 2017). Recently, stakeholders (e.g. customers and employees) have been demanding
greater environmental responsibility from corporations (Boiral et al., 2015; Boiral et al., International Journal of
2018). As a result, business organizations are shifting their traditional models into green Manpower
© Emerald Publishing Limited
models by implementing green initiatives in their operations (Wagner, 2011), which can 0143-7720
be a source of DOI 10.1108/IJM-08-2019-0407
IJM competitive advantage (Jackson and Seo, 2010). Shen et al. (2016) explained that green
initiatives are the key practices of green human resource management (GHRM), which
require employee behaviors that help to achieve organizations’ green objectives.
Therefore, GHRM is important to encourage employees to engage in green initiatives,
which are aligned with the corporate vision of the organization (Roscoe et al., 2019;
Renwick et al., 2016). Jackson and Seo (2010) argued that GHRM is a set of practices
adopted by organizations to implement policies leading toward environmental
sustainability.
Kramar (2014) explained GHRM as “HRM activities that enhance positive environmental
outcomes” (p. 1075). A survey conducted was by British Carbon Trust on 1,018
individuals, of which over 75 percent considered working with the organizations that have
active environment-friendly policies (Felgate, 2006). According to Daily and Huang
(2001), GHRM becomes essential factor for the successful execution of green strategies
and environmental management (EM) practices. Howard-Grenville et al. (2014) argued that the
concept of GHRM is growing alongside the broader literature of sustainable organizational
development and has been recognized as a separate area of scholarship in previous decade
(Renwick et al., 2016; Jackson and Seo, 2010). Recent research linked GHRM to different
aspects of EM and environmental performance (Dumont et al., 2016; Shen et al., 2016,
2018; Gholami et al., 2016; O’Donohue and Torugsa, 2016; Subramanian et al., 2016;
Jabbour and Santos, 2008; Jabbour et al., 2008). The empirical research also investigated a
positive influence of GHRM on employees’ work-related outcomes (e.g. Dumont et al., 2016;
Boiral, 2009; Shen et al., 2018). For example, Kim et al. (2019) found the impact of GHRM on
employees’ eco-friendly behavior and environmental performance. Another study by
Dumont et al. (2016) examined the effect of GHRM practices on employees in-role and
extra-role green behaviors through psychological green climate. Despite the burgeoning
research on GHRM and employees’ work-related outcomes, however, the research in this
area is still in its infancy and further research is needed to find new social and
psychological processes to connect GHRM to employees’ outcomes (Renwick et al., 2013;
Dumont et al., 2016). Therefore, to fill this literature gap, our study examines the
influence of GHRM practices on organizational citizenship behavior toward environment
(OCBE; individual discretionary behavior toward environmental management) via green
employee empowerment (GEE) (see Figure 1).
Employee empowerment enhances their motivation to work and job performance in terms
of effectiveness and efficiency (Jackson et al., 2014). When employees use this
empowerment to achieve their green goals, it is termed as GEE (Tariq et al., 2016). Green
goals contain practices such as making double-sided photocopies, recycling, using energy-
efficient appliances, and recycling old office furniture. Organizations can achieve
sustainable green goals through GEE, for instance, managers provide support and
developmental feedback to empower employees, which ought to help them to perform
their green tasks (Daily and Huang, 2001; Tariq et al., 2016). Furthermore, supervisory
participation in the green tasks stimulates employees toward green environment
(Dumont et al., 2016). Therefore, top

Individual Green Values

Figure 1.
The research Green Employee Empowerment
GHRM OCBE
framework
management involvement is complementary in implementing green practices at
workplace. According to Tariq et al. (2016), employee empowerment to green activities GHRM
enhances their commitment to, trust in, and productivity in the organization. Hence, practices and
empowered employees are more likely to cope better with their routine responsibilities employees’
and they may likely perform OCBE (Boiral, 2009). Moreover, consistent with supplies- OCBE
values fit (SVF) theory by Edwards (1996), our study explores the role of individual green
values (IGV) as a moderator on the relationship of GEE and employees’ OCBE. Thus, our
study answers the question of how and when GHRM affects employees’ OCBE.
In sum, our study contributes to the literature of GHRM in several ways. First, based on
HRM behavioral literature, we examine GEE as a mediator between GHRM practices and
employees’ OCBE. GHRM practices may lead employees toward green empowerment,
which significantly engenders employees’ OCBE. Doing so, our study responds to
scholarly call (Dumont et al., 2016) for investigating underlying mechanisms of GHRM
and employees’ in- role and extra-role green behavior. Second, our study explores the
moderating effect of IGV on the relationship of GEE and employees’ OCBE. The
individuals’ concern toward natural environment increases their commitment toward green
environment, which may strengthen the relationship of GEE and employees’ OCBE.
Third, our study extends the literature by testing the hypothesized relationships in a
developing country context (i.e. Pakistan), which is neglected in previous research (e.g.
Renwick et al., 2013; Ren et al., 2018). The developed and developing countries are
different in culture (Hofstede, 2011) and economic situations; thus, this study offers an
opportunity for the researchers to know contrasting conditions. Moreover, Pakistan is at
the face of special challenges regarding the environmental pollution. The environmental
performance index (EPI) 2018 indicates that Pakistan is ranked on 169/ 180 countries in
environmental performance[1]. There has been a significant increase in environmental
pollution in 2016, and Pakistan is among the top 30 countries that are affected by air
pollution. Furthermore, Pakistan has two of its major cities in the top most polluted cities
in the world (Barletta et al., 2017). To have a better comprehension, these environmental
issues need to be investigated with different perspectives. The current research
incorporates a few of the potential factors (i.e. GHRM, GEE, individual green values, and
OCBE), which offer a solution to these issues. These factors may influence employees’
attitudes and behaviors and could perform a better role in efficiently designing the
organizational EM policies.

Theoretical background and hypotheses

Two theories were used to explain the conceptual model of this research. We first used
ability–motivation–opportunity (AMO) theory; according to AMO theory, HRM practices
are linked with performance (Jiang et al., 2012) in relation to ability, motivation, and
opportunity (Appelbaum et al., 2000). The AMO theory explains that HRM practices
enhance organization’s human capital via increased human capabilities, which result in
increased performance such as reduced waste and increased quality. Following the AMO
theory, HRM practices might influence employees’ discretionary behaviors (Shen et al.,
2016). HRM behavioral literature advocates that a set of HRM practices might influence
various employees’ workplace attitudes and behaviors via different social and
psychological processes (for more detail, see Jiang et al., 2012). GEE is a psychological
process, which may influence employees’ green behaviors (Tariq et al., 2016). Moreover,
our research also follows the SVF theory, which asserts the ways through which
employees’ personal values influence their workplace behaviors. Likewise, Chou (2014)
found that personal environmental values have significant influence on employees’ eco-
friendly behavior. Thus, the SVF theory supports the framework proposed in this research
in that if an organization supplies an environment conducive to employees’ personal
values, and as a result the employees; green
IJM values were congruent with the organization, it would be anticipated that the employees
would more likely perform OCBE.

GHRM practices and GEE

The proponents of HRM behavioral literature argued that HRM practices influence
employees’ green behavior (Dumont et al., 2016). GEE is one of the important behaviors
to
achieve organizational green goals (Tariq et al., 2016). The organizations may use GEE as
a strategic tool to encourage employees to rethink about their job requirements, find
meaningfulness in the job, and enhances their level of competency at the job (Laschinger
et al., 2004). The previous research suggested that employees’ feeling of empowerment
enhances their willingness to contribute to EM initiatives of the organization (Kitazawa
et al., 2000; Simpson and Samson, 2010). The study of Muogbo (2013) stated that
empowered employees feel internal motivation, which leads them to positive work-related
outcomes such as job satisfaction. Gutowski et al. (2005) highlighted a number of benefits
associated with the motivated green workforce such as improved work quality, higher
level of commitment, self-efficacy, and job satisfaction. The AMO theory (Appelbaum et
al., 2000) explains how GHRM practices influence employees’ ability and motivation to
green goals and provide opportunity to achieve their green goals. In the current stream of
research, there are three important components of GHRM practices: (1) the development
of employees’ green ability through training; (2) the motivation of employees to green
performance management; (3) and providing green opportunities through employee
involvement (Guerci et al., 2016; Masri and Jaaron, 2017; Pinzone et al., 2016), which can
enhance employees’ ability, motivation, and opportunity to participate in organizational
green activities. Furthermore, the study of Renwick et al. (2013) suggested that
organizations can use HRM practices to effectively contribute to environmental
sustainability. For example, organizations can increase employees’ motivation to the
socioeconomic benefits of EM through providing green training and introduce employees’
involvement programs (providing latitude in green tasks). Therefore, we assume that
GHRM practices will lead to GEE because the green tasks themselves direct and require
employees to be empowered while proceeding to the green objectives. Therefore, we
posit:
H1. GHRM practices are positively related with GEE.

Green employee empowerment and OCBE

Being prosocial in nature, green behavior has a social and environmental imperative for
employees (Chou, 2014). Ramus and Killmer (2007) argued that green behaviors in a
workplace consists of compulsory (in-role) and voluntary (extra-role) behaviors and are
helpful in value creation. The employees are different in their level of discretion at
workplace, and this thing affects their roles in terms of when and how they demonstrate
discretionary behaviors (Hoffman and Dilchert, 2012). OCBE is a voluntary behavior and
can be defined as “individual and discretionary social behaviors that are not explicitly
recognized by the formal reward system and that contribute to a more effective
environmental management by organizations” (Boiral, 2009, p. 223). Lamm et al. (2013) stated
that OCBE involves the feelings of sustainability within and outside the organization,
which may help the organization to achieve their green goals (Norton et al., 2014). Boiral and
Paill´e (2012) categorized OCBE into three more inclusive dimensions: (1) eco-initiatives are
environment-friendly actions by workers, such as recycling, water-saving, energy-saving,
and other voluntary activities to sustain the green environment; (2) eco-helping assumes
that employees are cooperative with their colleagues in handling the environmental issues;
and (3) eco-civic engagement
 represents the participative sense and action of employees relating to environmental
upgradation such as workshops and seminars arranged by the corporations or other GHRM
entities. practices and
Hoffman (1993) is of the view that organizations can encourage their employees to employees’
engage in environmental improvement activities such as OCBE through green OCBE
empowerment. Organizations can empower employees to be green through mandating
green actions such as the prohibition of pouring toxic water into nearby canals/river or
instructing employees to carefully handle the hazardous materials and implementing the
GHRM practices (Robertson
and Barling, 2013). Pinzone et al. (2016) suggested that when employees are given more
participation in decision-making related to environmental issues, they are more willing to
engage in voluntary activities to environmental improvement. Furthermore, Ramus and
Steger (2000) argued that employees feel green empowerment when they have green-friendly
environment in the organization, which may encourage employees to show OCBE.
Therefore, we proposed that GEE is positively related to OCBE.
H2. GEE is positively related to OCBE.

The mediating role of green employee empowerment

The research on HRM behavioral literature argued that HRM practices may affect
employees’ behavior through psychological mechanisms (for more details, see Jiang et al.,
2012). The findings of the literature also suggest that these psychological mechanisms
(e.g. psychological green climate and engagement in green initiatives) may enhance
employees’ work performance (Shen et al., 2016). In the current study, we hypothesized
that GHRM practices positively affect GEE, and GEE positively predicts employees’
OCBE. Thus, it may be logical that GEE mediates the effect of GHRM practices and
employees’ OCBE. Based on social exchange theory (SET; Blau, 1964), this study posits
GEE as a mediator between GHRM practices and employees’ OCBE. According to SET,
when the employees feel green empowerment through favorable HRM practices, they feel
obligated and tend to reciprocate by actively engaging in OCBE. As noted, GHRM
practice enhances employees’ awareness, motivation, and involvement toward green
activities, which increases employees’ empowerment to green goals. This increased feeling
of empowerment may motivate employees to show discretionary behavior (i.e. OCBE)
toward environmental management. In the current research, we argued that GEE mediates
the effect of GHRM on employees’ OCBE. The results of previous studies and the
arguments of SET indicate that when employees perceive benefits form their
organizational actions, they feel obligated and will try to reciprocate in terms of OCBE
(Jiang et al., 2012). These arguments provide theoretical justification for the proposed
mediating role of GEE between GHRM practices and employees’ OCBE. Therefore, we
propose the following hypothesis:
H3. Green employee empowerment mediates the relationship between green HRM
practices and OCBE.

The moderating role of individual green values

The literature on contemporary green values has spotlighted the significance of individual
values on their attitudes and behaviors (Davidov et al., 2008). The individuals’ concern for
environmental values greatly influences their eco-friendly behaviors (Chou, 2014). The
previous research articulated a direct relationship between personal values and
environmental performance (Chou, 2014; Schultz et al., 2005). The value–belief–norm
(VBN) theory (Stern et al., 1999) and SVF theory (Edwards, 2007) are the two largely
used theories in the literature to envisage the ways through which individual values
influence their behaviors. The VBN theory suggested that personal values, beliefs, and
norms influence
IJM individuals’ work behavior (Stern et al., 1999). The process of environmental behavioral
activation has been synthesized through VBN along with the norm-activation theory,
personal values theory, and the New Ecological Paradigm (NEP) (Dunlap and Van Liere,
1978). The model explains the environmental behavior and particularizes the
environmental beliefs and the individual green values contributing to environmental
behavior. In more precise terms, the environmental beliefs of each individual regarding
ecological concern are affected by his/her green values and views regarding the NEP. The
NEP is an orientation to
the ecological worldview where one feels adverse outcomes or the perceived threats,
which affect his/her norms.
SVF theory suggests that the individual values are in congruence with the
organizational values and that individual values positively affect employees’ attitude and
behavior. Previous research found that individual values influence employees’ OCBE
(Boiral, 2009; Ramus and Killmer, 2007). However, few studies showed inconsistent
findings regarding the influence of individual values on employees’ OCBE (Boiral et al.,
2015; Lamm et al., 2013). Therefore, providing the lead to future researcher to explore the
unique dynamics of employees’ OCBE, we thus purpose that individuals’ green value may
moderate the relationship of GEE and employees’ OCBE. SVF theory provides support to
our hypothesized model, that is, when the organization supplies favorable environment to
empowered employees, it would create alignment between individual green values and
organizational values. This may lead employees to exhibit more discretionary behavior
toward environment (e.g. OCBE). Therefore, we assume that IGV may strengthen the
relationship of GEE and employees’ OCBE.
H4. Individual green values moderate the influence of GEE on OCBE, such that the
relationship will be stronger when individual green values are high.

Method and procedure

The current research obtained the data from employees and their supervisors of a large
manufacturing company. This organization has different types of manufacturing plants
(paper packaging, chemical fertilizers, food, and beverages, etc.). These plants have a
functional organizational structure and have similar HRM practice across the company.
We received support from top management that has been actively engaged in the
implementation of green policies within the organization. The selected organization is
expected to meet the environmental obligations according to the international standards,
and the organization’s EM system has been externally audited against the 14,001 standards
of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). The interviews of general
manager, the HR managers, and the environmental and safety officer disclosed that the
company had adopted a range of GHRM policies and practices, and this organization set
high green standards regarding energy consumption, water consumption, waste
management, and waste recycling. A variety of GHRM practices (e.g. green training,
employee motivation, and employee involvement, etc.) had been adopted to engage
employees in environment management activities. Furthermore, the organization also
encouraged its employees through green empowerment regarding EM activities such as
energy- and material-saving, waste handling, and recycling.
The data were collected by sending an email invitation to the participants using
company’s internal mail system. The cover letter explains the aim of the study and data
collection procedure. Furthermore, the participants were also informed that (1) their
participation will be voluntary, (2) surveys will be kept confidential, and (3) their response
will be used for academic research purposes only. The participants completed their
surveys during the break time. To minimize the detrimental effects of method biases, we
collected data from two sources such as employees and their corresponding supervisors
(Podsakoff et al.,
2003b). The employees completed a survey including GHRM, GEE, IGV, and control
variables, and the supervisor completed employees’ OCBE survey[2]. We then GHRM
subsequently matched employee questionnaire with supervisor questionnaire using practices and
individual employee codes that were assigned to each participant at the beginning of the employees’
survey. Of the 686 employees across the four plants, 378 participants completed the OCBE
survey, with a response rate of 55.1 percent. We eliminated 13 questionnaires due to
incomplete information; thus, 365 were usable surveys. In our final sample, 63 percent of
the participants had more than 10
years of experience, and on average, respondents have bachelor’s and above education. The
average age of respondents was 37 years, and 78.4 percent of the participants were male.

Measures
GHRM practices: The scale of GHRM practices was adapted from a previous study
(Dumont et al., 2016). The respondents rated their perception of the implementation of
GHRM practices by their organization on a five-point Likert-type scale (1 5 “not at all” to
5 5 “very much”). The sample statement is, “My organization considers employees’
workplace green behavior in performance appraisals.” We conducted a confirmatory factor
analysis (CFA) to ensure the validity of the questionnaire. The findings supported the
single-dimensional structure, (χ2/df 5 11.75, p < 0.05), comparative fit index (CFI) 5
0.98, Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) 5 0.97, and root mean square error of approximation
(RMSEA) 5 0.03. All the values were exactly in accordance with the ideal model fit (for
more details, see Hair et al., 2010). The Cronbach alpha value of this measure was 0.71.
Green employee empowerment: GEE was measured with an adapted version of the
employee psychological empowerment scale (Spreitzer, 1995). To measure GEE, we
rephrased wordings to include green behavior or green jobs if the original wording
referenced only jobs or work. Furthermore, we modified the wording of one item, “My
impact on what happens in my department is large” was replaced with “The impact of my
green behavior on what happens in my department is large.” We then conducted a focus
group discussion with five PhD students and two postdoctoral researchers from business
administration department. We agreed to remove three items that were related to personal
abilities that affected the organization (see Appendix 1). Next, we conducted two more
focus groups before the formal scale was presented to employees. The organization had
686 employees in total, with 34 employees participating in focus group discussions. The
employees who participated in the focus groups were not included in the final survey. The
responses were anchored on a five-point Likert-type scale (1 5 “not at all” to 5 5 “very
much”). We then performed exploratory factor analysis (EFA) on the measure of GEE. All
coefficients were greater than 0.30. The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin value was 0.84, and the
Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant (p < 0.001). These findings supported the
factorability of the correlation matrix. The principal axis factoring extracted one factor
with eigenvalue above 1 (eigenvalue 5 3.54, explaining 42.83 percent of the variance).
The individual factor loadings were all above 0.68 except two items (GEE8 and GEE9)
that were removed because of their low factor loadings. To analyze the psychometric
properties of GEE scale, we conducted CFA. We used following fit indices (Byrne, 2001):
χ2/df, RMSEA, CFI, and TLI, to assess the model’s goodness of fit. Hair et al. (2010) and
Kline (2015) suggested that a good model fit should have CFI and TLI scores greater than
0.90 and RMSEA value below
0.08. Our results indicated that the model fit was good for a single-dimensional
structure of GEE scale (χ2/df 5 84.06/33, p < 0.05, CFI 5 0.97, TLI 5 0.96, and
RMSEA 5 0.07). The Cronbach alpha value of this measure was 0.76.
Individual green values: We assessed IGV by using three-item from Chou (2014)’s
personal environmental scale. This measure was anchored on a five-point Likert-type scale
(1 5 “not at all” to 5 “very much”). An example item was “I feel a personal obligation to
do
IJM whatever I can to prevent environmental degradation.” The Cronbach alpha value of this
measure was 0.81.
Employees’ OCBE: A seven-item scale developed by Boiral and Paill´e (2012) was used to
assess how workers go about initiating innovative and spontaneous behaviors directed
toward environmental improvement. The items developed by and used by Raineri and Paill
´e (2016) were chosen for the current research because they are relatively general and
unspecific and can, therefore, apply to various “companies, occupations or circumstances,
and activity
sectors” (p. 435). The example items are “XYZ make suggestions about ways to protect the
environment more effectively,” “XYZ encourages his/her colleagues to adopt more
environmentally conscious behavior,” “XYZ stay informed of the company’s
environmental efforts,” and “XYZ volunteer for projects or activities that address
environmental issues in this organization.” Participants were asked to rate their degree of
agreement on a five-point Likert-type scale (1 5 “strongly disagree” to 5 5 “strongly
agree”). The Cronbach alpha value of this measure was 0.84.
Control variables: Past studies suggest potential relationships among demographic
characteristics and pro-environmental behavior in the workplace (Abrahamse and Steg,
2009; Lamm et al., 2013). Therefore, we controlled participants’ gender, age, education,
and job level.

Data analysis and results

We used SPSS 20 for descriptive statistics and correlation. Structural equation modeling
(SEM) was performed using AMOS 20, which is recognized as a robust statistical tool and
is commonly used for doing CFA and SEM. The data screening stage incorporated missing
value analysis, multivariate outliers, normality, multicollinearity, descriptive statistics, and
correlations.

Nonresponse bias and common method bias

Lessler and Kalsbeek (1992) assessed nonresponse bias through comparing early and late
responses to demographic characteristics, such as number of employees and education
level. The findings of t-test illustrated no significant statistical difference (p < 0.05) among
the category means for the demographic characteristics. Thus, results indicate no presence
of nonresponse bias.
Moreover, to minimize the effect of common method bias (CMB), our study adopted
different procedural and statistical measures as suggested by Podsakoff et al. (2003a). For
procedural measures, we collected multisource data from employee–supervisor dyads.
Furthermore, we also ensured the confidentiality of the participants’ responses. For
statistical measures, our study used Harman’s single factor, single-factor CFA, and
common latent factor (Guide and Ketokivi, 2015). The results of Harman’s single factor
showed that all the items can be divided into four distinct factors, and the first factor
explained 25.1 percent of the total variance. A single-factor CFA also did not illustrate an
acceptable model fit. In common latent factor, any threat of CMB was not captured for the
data used in current research (Podsakoff et al., 2003b).
To evaluate the multicollinearity, we used variance inflation factor (VIF) indicators.
According to Hair et al. (2006), the VIF value should be less than 5. The VIF scores in our
results range from 1.04 to 1.67, indicating the absence of any serious multicollinearity
issue.

Measurement model
Before conducting the substantial analyses, we conducted a series of CFAs to assess
discriminant validity of our study constructs. As shown in Table I, the results depict that
the proposed four-factor model had a good fit with the data, and it is significantly better
than nested models, including three-factor model where GEE and IGV are combined
 (Δχ2 (18) 5 409.15, p < 0.01) and the one-factor model (Δχ2 (27) 5 747.29, p < 0.01).
Thus, the result showed that the four variables in the measurement model were distinctive GHRM
variables. We assessed the measurement model by testing the convergent and practices and
discriminant validities (Hair et al., 2010). For convergent validity, average variance employees’
extracted (AVE) > 0.50; to establish reliability, the composite reliability (CR) > 0.70; and OCBE
to establish discriminant validity, maximum shared variance (MSV) < AVE and
average shared variance (ASV) < AVE. Results in Table II indicate that all the scales
used are reliable and valid
and meet aforementioned criteria. Moreover, the discriminant validity was also assessed by
comparing the association of the correlation between all variables and the square root of
AVE of all the constructs (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). As presented in Table III, the
square root of AVE is greater than the correlation among variables. Therefore, the result
shows good discriminant validity. Table III also shows the descriptive statistics,
Cronbach’s alpha, and correlation among the variables.

Tests of hypotheses
By following the existing literature in the field of HRM (De Roeck and Farooq, 2018;
Farooq et al., 2017), we used SEM for direct and indirect (mediation) effects. As
suggested by Preacher and Hayes (2008), we used 5,000 bootstrap resamples to compute
the significance of direct and indirect effects in SEM. In the current research, we used a
moderator centering approach (Preacher et al., 2007), to examine the simple slopes and
conditional indirect effects (i.e. moderated mediation) in SEM. To examine the mediation,
the direct and indirect paths be specified simultaneously, so as to estimate either effects
while partialling out the other (Iacobucci et al., 2007). We thus, specified SEM model by
incorporating the hypothesized effects as well as direct effect of GHRM on employees’
OCBE. We found that all hypothesized relationships were significant. Results in Table IV
illustrate that after controlling for the effect of demographic variables, GHRM practices
have a positive influence on GEE (β 5 0.18, SE 5 0.04, p < 0.01), supporting hypothesis
1. The model showed that a 10 percent of the variance exists in the GEE. The results also
show that GEE has positive influence on employees’ OCBE (β 5 0.30, SE 5 0.04, p <
0.01). Thus, the hypothesis 2 was supported.

Variables χ2 df CFI TLI RMSEA

Measurement model 1: The four-factor model 816.03 385 0.97 0.96 0.04
(Proposed structural model)
Measurement model 2: The three-factor model 1225.18 403 0.82 0.79 0.12
(OCBE, GEE, and individual green behavior were combined,
respectively) Table I.
Measurement model 3: The one-factor model 1563.32 412 0.73 0.72 0.18 Comparisons of the
(all items were loaded in single factor) measurement models

Variables CR AVE MSV ASV

Green HRM 0.88 0.59 0.15 0.10
Green employee empowerment 0.90 0.57 0.14 0.11
Individual green values 0.83 0.55 0.25 0.14
OCBE 0.90 0.56 0.25 0.18
Notes: N 5 365; CR, Composite reliability; AVE, Average variance extracted; MSV, Maximum shared Table II.
variance; ASV, Average shared variance Reliability and validity
 Table III.
Descriptiv
IJ
e M
statistics,
correlatio
ns, and
reliability
statistics

Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 α
1. Gender 1.30 0.45 – – – – – – – – – –
2. Age 1.64 0.67 0.05 – – – – – – – – –
3. Education 2.35 0.79 0.01 —0.13* – – – – – – – –
4. Tenure —0.38**2.42 0.77 0.07 0.34** – – – – – – –
5. Position 1.06 0.25 0.01 0.06 —0.01 —0.06 – – – – – –
6. Green HRM 2.84 0.53 0.01 —0.01 —0.05 0.01 0.027 0.76 – – – 0.71
7. Green employee empowerment 3.46 0.37 0.06 0.08 —0.06 —0.19** 0.13** 0.18** 0.75 – – 0.76
8. Individual green values 3.08 0.85 0.02 0.24** —0.28** —0.08 0.25** 0.33** 0.27** 0.74 – 0.81
9. OCBE 2.98 0.49 0.02 0.08 —0.08 —0.07 0.50** 0.39** 0.38** 0.50** 0.75 0.84
Notes: N 5 36. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01. Diagonal elements (bold values) in the correlation matrix are the square root of the average variance extracted
 Dependent variables Indirect effect of GHRM
GHRM
Independent variable GEE OCBE on OCBE through GEE Remarks practices and
employees’
Gender 0.02 0.01 – –
Age 0.01 —0.02 – – OCBE
Education 0.02 0.08 – –
Experience 0.20* —0.02 – –
Position 0.07 —0.05 – –
GHRM 0.18*** 0.39*** 0.05* Partial mediation
Green employee empowerment – 0.30***
– –
Individual green values – 0.38***
– –
IGV*GEE – 0.19** – Positive
R2 0.10 0.41 – moderation
– Table IV.
Notes: N 5 365; *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001; GHRM, Green HRM; GEE, Green employee Direct, indirect, and
empowerment; moderating effects
IGV, Individual values

Following the recommendations of Iacobucci et al. (2007), we examined the mediating

effect of GEE between GHRM and employees’ OCBE. Our results show that employees’
perception of GHRM practices has the positive indirect effect (β 5 0.05, p < 0.05) on
employees’ OCBE. The results partially supported hypothesis 3.

Moderation analysis Hypothesis

4 sated that individual green values moderate the relationship between GEE and
employees’ OCBE. The results in Table IV demonstrate that IGV positively moderated the
relationship between GEE and employees’ OCBE (interaction term 5 0.19, p < 0.01).
Thus, hypothesis 4 was supported. Figure 2 demonstrates the relationship. Moreover, the
indirect effect of GHRM on employees’ OCBE via GEE was also proposed to be
moderated by IGV. To test the moderated mediation, we used the recently developed
PROCESS macro for SPSS by Hayes (2013) with 5,000 bootstrapping resamples, as
suggested by MacKinnon et al. (2012). We used Hayes’s Model 14, which simultaneously
incorporates the moderation of

4.5

3.5
Low Individual green values
OCBE

High Individual green values

3

2.5

1.5

Figure 2.
1 Hypothesis 4
Low Green empowerment High Green empowerment
IJM second-stage relationship. The PROCESS macro provided us with an estimate of the
indirect effect at low and high levels of the moderator. The findings showed that the
indirect effect of GHRM on employees’ OCBE through GEE was stronger when
employees held high perception of IGV. Table V illustrates that the conditional indirect
effect for GHRM via GEE on employees’ OCBE was 0.09 with a 95 percent confidence
interval (CI) of [0.032, 0.155] when the level of IGV was high and 0.02 with a 95 percent
CI of [—0.005, 0.042] when the levels of IGV were low.

Discussion
The past research has highlighted the role of GHRM in environmental management
(Renwick et al., 2013; Ren et al., 2018). The current research contributes to the literature
through empirically examining the relationship between GHRM and employees’ green
outcomes. For this, we utilized the behavioral HRM (Jiang et al., 2012; Nishii et al., 2008)
and employee empowerment (Tariq et al., 2016; Yusliza et al., 2017) literature to test that
how GEE mediates the effect of GHRM on employees’ OCBE. Furthermore, based on
SVF theory, this study examined the moderation of IGV on GEE and employees’ OCBE
relationship.
The results of this study illustrate that GEE mediates the effect of GHRM on
employees’ OCBE. This study contributes to the knowledge stock of an emerging area by
arguing that perceptions of GHRM have indirect effects on employees’ OCBE via GEE,
which is still not tested by empirical studies. Furthermore, our study adds to the literature
by incorporating GEE as psychological process, to explore the underlying mechanism of
GHRM and employees’ OCBE, as suggested by previous research (Jiang et al., 2012;
Renwick et al., 2013). These results are consistent with the previous research (Dumont et
al., 2016; O’Donohue and Torugsa, 2016), which examined the relationship of GHRM
practices and employees’ behavioral outcomes through different psychological processes.
Similarly, based on SET, when employees perceive empowerment from their organization
toward environmental issues, they feel obligated and will try to reciprocate in terms of
OCBE. For this viewpoint, environmental actions enable reciprocal exchanges based on
common values that, if promoted, will strengthen social exchange between employees’ and
organization (Hoffman, 1993; Paill´e et al., 2013).
This study found that individual green values moderate the effect of green GEE on
employees’ OCBE. Our results indicated that when employees have high green values, the
relationship between GEE and employees’ OCBE becomes stronger. According to SVF
theory (Edwards, 1996), the congruence between personal values and organizational
values results in positive employees’ behaviors. Furthermore, this theory also provides
support to the moderating effect of IGV on the relationship of GEE and employees’
OCBE. Our results are also in line with previous findings that found a moderating effect of
IGV on employees’ extra- role green behavior (Chou, 2014; Dumont et al., 2016). The
results about the moderating influence of IGV and the GEE as mediator are significant as
they depict an important psychological process by which GHRM affects employees’
OCBE.

Practical implications
This research has several practical implications for practitioners and organizations. First,
the organizations should empower HRM managers in terms of GHRM practices because
they are

Table V.
Moderated mediation
effects of green HRM Independent Level of Conditional Lower Upper
on job OCBE (via variable Mediator moderator indirect effect bound bound
green employee
empowerment) across Green HRM GEE Low IGV 0.02 —0.005 0.042
High IGV 0.09* 0.032 0.155
levels of individual
green values Notes: *p < 0.05, GEE, Green employee empowerment; IGV, Individual green values
responsible for implementing the organization’s vision about environmental management.
Moreover, the employees should be empowered and encouraged to perform their tasks GHRM
aligning with organizational green values. Second, the organizations should provide green practices and
awareness to their employees through green training, which helps them to understand the employees’
green concepts. Such preparation would improve the basic skills of employees to OCBE
implement the green concepts and help to attain the green management goals effectively.
Finally, organizations should appropriately appraise workers’ green behavior (Dumont et
al., 2016)
and align this behavior to promotional opportunities, pay, and compensation and encourage
and motivate them to engage in green activities, which helps employees to contribute to EM
objectives.

Limitations and future directions

The current research has several limitations, which may help future researchers to extend
this line of research. First, the participating organization of this research is a multinational
manufacturing enterprise working in Pakistan. HRM practices of multinational enterprises
may be influenced by their country of origin (Ferner, 1997). Therefore, the sample of this
research might not be fully representative of local (nonmultinational) firm practices
operating in Pakistan. Future research could concentrate on local organizations or on
cross-cultural investigation to increase generalizability of our findings. Second, we
collected cross-sectional data that may be influenced by CMB. Although, in this research,
supervisors rated employees’ OCBE, which might minimize the effect of CMB (Podsakoff
et al., 2003a). Moreover, to address the issue of CMB, this study highlights the desirability
of using longitudinal measures to fully explore the fluctuations in employees’ green
behavioral outcomes by adopting GHRM practices. Third, our conceptual model
incorporated only the GEE as a mediator while future study can explore more social and
psychological constructs such as organizational pride (Jones, 2010), individual green
values[3], human capital, and other motivational perspectives (Jiang et al., 2012).
Furthermore, previous research suggested that the influence of GHRM on individual
outcomes might be moderated by other different factors such as employee discretion
(Bansal, 2003), commitment to ethics (Muller and Kolk, 2010), and equity sensitivity
(Mudrack et al., 1999). Fourth, most of the previous studies on GHRM have examined the
effect of GHRM practices on individual or organizational green outcomes. The influence
of GHRM on nongreen work attitudes and behaviors has not yet been sufficiently
investigated, so it is also worth suggesting that future research should explore the
influence of GHRM on employees’ nongreen outcomes in terms of attitudes and behavior.
Such studies will add to the literature of HRM from the green perspective and also
contribute to knowledge concerning employee organizational green outcomes.

Conclusion
In conclusion, our study extended the literature on the influence of GHRM on employees’
OCBE via GEE in manufacturing sector of Pakistan. Our results help to advance the
understanding of how and when GHRM practices influence the employees’ discretionary
behaviors toward environment and contribute to the firms’ journey of sustainable
environmental performance.

Notes
1. https://epi.envirocenter.yale.edu/epi-country-report/PAK.
2. A total of 185 supervisors rated 365 employees.
3. We acknowledged the anonymous reviewers for highlighting this limitation of the study.
IJM References
Abrahamse, W. and Steg, L. (2009), “How do socio-demographic and psychological factors relate to
households’ direct and indirect energy use and savings?”, Journal of economic psychology,
Vol. 30, pp. 711-720.
Appelbaum, E., Bailey, T., Berg, P., Kalleberg, A.L. and Bailey, T.A. (2000), Manufacturing
Advantage: Why High-Performance Work Systems Pay off, Cornell University Press, Ithaca,
New York.
Bansal, P. (2003), “From issues to actions: the importance of individual concerns and organizational
values in responding to natural environmental issues”, Organization Science, Vol. 14,
pp. 510-527.
Barletta, B., Simpson, I.J., Blake, N.J., Meinardi, S., Emmons, L.K., Aburizaiza, O.S., Siddique, A.,
Zeb, J., Liya, E.Y. and Khwaja, H.A.J. (2017), “Characterization of carbon monoxide, methane
and nonmethane hydrocarbons in emerging cities of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and in
Singapore”, Journal of Atmospheric Chemistry, Vol. 74, pp. 87-113.
Blau, P.M. (1964), Power and Exchange in Social Life, J Wiley & Sons, New York, pp. 352.
Boiral, O. (2009), “Greening the corporation through organizational citizenship behaviors”, Journal
of Business Ethics, Vol. 87, pp. 221-236.
Boiral, O. and Paill´e, P. (2012), “Organizational citizenship behaviour for the
environment: measurement and validation”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 109, pp. 431-
445.
Boiral, O., Raineri, N. and Talbot, D. (2018), “Managers’ citizenship behaviors for the environment:
a developmental perspective”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 149, pp. 395-409.
Boiral, O., Talbot, D. and Paill´e, P. (2015), “Leading by example: a model of organizational citizenship
behavior for the environment”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 24, pp. 532-550.
Byrne, B.M. (2001), “Structural equation modeling with AMOS, EQS, and LISREL: comparative
approaches to testing for the factorial validity of a measuring instrument”, International
Journal of Testing, Vol. 1, pp. 55-86.
Chou, C.-J. (2014), “Hotels’ environmental policies and employee personal environmental beliefs:
interactions and outcomes”, Tourism Management, Vol. 40, pp. 436-446.
Daily, B.F. and Huang, S.-C. (2001), “Achieving sustainability through attention to human resource
factors in environmental management”, International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, Vol. 21, pp. 1539-1552.
Davidov, E., Schmidt, P. and Schwartz, S.H. (2008), “Bringing values back in the adequacy of the
European Social Survey to measure values in 20 countries”, Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol.
72, pp. 420-445.
De Roeck, K. and Farooq, O. (2018), “Corporate social responsibility and ethical leadership:
investigating their interactive effect on employees’ socially responsible behaviors”, Vol. 151,
pp. 923-939.
Dumont, J., Shen, J. and Deng, X. (2016), “Effects of green HRM practices on employee workplace
green behavior: the role of psychological green climate and employee green values”, Human
Resource Management, Vol. 56 No. 4, pp. 613-627.
Dunlap, R.E. and Van Liere, K.D. (1978), “The new environmental paradigm”, The Journal of
Environmental Education, Vol. 9, pp. 10-19.
Edwards, J.R. (1996), “An examination of competing versions of the person-environment fit
approach to stress”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 39, pp. 292-339.
Edwards, J.R. (2007), “The relationship between person-environment fit and outcomes: an integrative
theoretical framework”, in Ostroff, C., and Judge, T.A. (Eds), Perspectives on Organizational
Fit, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 209-258.
Farooq, O., Rupp, D.E. and Farooq, M. (2017), “The multiple pathways through which internal and
external corporate social responsibility influence organizational identification and multifoci
outcomes: the moderating role of cultural and social orientations”, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 60, pp. 954-985.
Felgate, G.J.C.T.N. (2006), UK Employees Set to Drive Greening of Business, Carbon Trust News, pp.
1-2. GHRM
Fernando, Y., Jabbour, C.J.C. and Wah, W.-X. (2019), “Pursuing green growth in technology firms practices and
through the connections between environmental innovation and sustainable business performance: employees’
does service capability matter?”, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Vol. 141, pp. 8-20. OCBE
Ferner, A. (1997), “Country of origin effects and HRM in multinational companies”, Human
Resource Management Journal, Vol. 7, pp. 19-37.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Gholami, H., Rezaei, G., Saman, M.Z.M., Sharif, S. and Zakuan, N. (2016), “State-of-the-art Green
HRM System: sustainability in the sports center in Malaysia using a multi-methods approach
and opportunities for future research”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 124, pp. 142-163.
Guerci, M., Longoni, A. and Luzzini, D. (2016), “Translating stakeholder pressures into
environmental performance–the mediating role of green HRM practices”, The International
Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 27, pp. 262-289.
Guide, V.D.R. and Ketokivi, M. (2015), “Notes from the Editors: redefining some methodological
criteria for the journal”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 37, pp. 5-8.
Gutowski, T., Murphy, C., Allen, D., Bauer, D., Bras, B., Piwonka, T., Sheng, P., Sutherland, J.,
Thurston, D. and Wolff, E. (2005), “Environmentally benign manufacturing: observations from
Japan, Europe and the United States”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 13, pp. 1-17.
Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B. and Anderson, R. (2010), Multivariate Data Analysis, 7th ed., Prentice
Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E. and Tatham, R.L. (2006), Multivariate Data
Analysis, 6th ed., Pearson Education, New Jersey.
Hartmann, J. and Vachon, S. (2018), “Linking environmental management to environmental
performance: the interactive role of industry context”, Business Strategy and the
Environment, Vol. 27, pp. 359-374.
Hayes, A.F. (2013), Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A
Regression-Based Approach, Guilford Press, New York.
Hoffman, A.J. (1993), “The importance of fit between individual values and organisational culture in
the greening of industry”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 2, pp. 10-18.
Hoffman, B.J. and Dilchert, S. (2012), “A review of citizenship and counterproductive behaviors in
organizational decision-making”, in Schmitt, N. (Ed), Oxford Library of Psychology. The
Oxford Handbook of Personnel Assessment and Selection, Oxford University Press, pp. 543-
569.
Hofstede, G. (2011), “Dimensionalizing cultures: the Hofstede model in context”, Online Readings in
Psychology and Culture, Vol. 2, p. 8.
Howard-grenville, J., Buckle, S.J., Hoskins, B.J. and George, G. (2014), Climate Change and
Management, Academy of Management Briarcliff Manor, NY.
Iacobucci, D., Saldanha, N. and Deng, X. (2007), “A meditation on mediation: evidence that
structural equations models perform better than regressions”, Journal of Consumer
Psychology, Vol. 17, pp. 139-153.
Jabbour, C.J.C. and Santos, F.C.A. (2008), “The central role of human resource management in the
search for sustainable organizations”, The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, Vol. 19, pp. 2133-2154.
Jabbour, C.J.C., Santos, F.C.A. and Nagano, M.S. (2008), “Environmental management system and
human resource practices: is there a link between them in four Brazilian companies?”, Journal
of Cleaner Production, Vol. 16, pp. 1922-1925.
Jabbour, C.J.C., Teixeira, A.A. and Jabbour, A.B.L.D.S. (2013), “Environmental training in
organizations with ISO 14001 certification: a multiple case study and identification of co-
evolution with environmental management”, Production, Vol. 23, pp. 80-94.
IJM Jackson, S.E., Schuler, R.S. and Jiang, K. (2014), “An aspirational framework for strategic human
resource management”, The Academy of Management Annals, Vol. 8, pp. 1-56.
Jackson, S.E. and Seo, J. (2010), “The greening of strategic HRM scholarship”, Organization
Management Journal, Vol. 7, pp. 278-290.
Jiang, K., Lepak, D.P., Hu, J. and Baer, J.C. (2012), “How does human resource management
influence organizational outcomes? A meta-analytic investigation of mediating mechanisms”,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 55, pp. 1264-1294.
Jones, D.A. (2010), “Does serving the community also serve the company? Using organizational
identification and social exchange theories to understand employee responses to a volunteerism
programme”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 83, pp. 857-878.
Kim, Y.J., Kim, W.G., Choi, H.-M. and Phetvaroon, K. (2019), “The effect of green human resource
management on hotel employees’ eco-friendly behavior and environmental performance”,
International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 76, pp. 83-93.
Kitazawa, S. and Sarkis, J. (2000), “The relationship between ISO 14001 and continuous source
reduction programs”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 20,
pp. 225-248.
Kline, R.B. (2015), Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, Guilford publications,
New York.
Kramar, R. (2014), “Beyond strategic human resource management: is sustainable human resource
management the next approach?”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management,
Vol. 25, pp. 1069-1089.
Lamm, E., Tosti-kharas, J. and Williams, E.G. (2013), “Read this article, but don’t print it:
organizational citizenship behavior toward the environment”, Group & Organization
Management, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 163-197.
Laschinger, H.K.S., Finegan, J.E., Shamian, J. and Wilk, P.J. (2004) “A longitudinal analysis of the
impact of workplace empowerment on work satisfaction”, Journal of Organizational Behavior,
Vol. 25, pp. 527-545.
Latan, H., Jabbour, C.J.C., De Sousa Jabbour, A.B.L., Wamba, S.F. and Shahbaz, M. (2018), “Effects
of environmental strategy, environmental uncertainty and top management’s commitment on
corporate environmental performance: the role of environmental management accounting”,
Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 180, pp. 297-306.
Lessler, J.T. and Kalsbeek, W.D. (1992), Nonsampling Errors in Surveys, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Mackinnon, D.P., Coxe, S. and Baraldi, A.N. (2012), “Guidelines for the investigation of mediating
variables in business research”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 27, pp. 1-14.
Masri, H.A. and Jaaron, A.A. (2017), “Assessing green human resources management practices in
Palestinian manufacturing context: An empirical study”, Journal of Cleaner Production,
Vol. 143, pp. 474-489.
Mudrack, P.E., Mason, E.S. and Stepeanski, K.M. (1999), “Equity sensitivity and business ethics”,
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 72, pp. 539-560.
Muller, A. and Kolk, A. (2010), “Extrinsic and intrinsic drivers of corporate social performance:
evidence from foreign and domestic firms in Mexico”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol.
47, pp. 1-26.
Muogbo, U. (2013), “The impact of employee motivation on organisational performance (A study of
some selected firms in Anambra state Nigeria)”, The International Journal of Engineering and
Science, Vol. 2, pp. 70-80.
Nishii, L.H., Lepak, D.P. and Schneider, B. (2008), “Employee attributions of the “why” of HR
practices: their effects on employee attitudes and behaviors, and customer satisfaction ”,
Personnel Psychology, Vol. 61, pp. 503-545.
Norton, T.A., Zacher, H. and Ashkanasy, N.M. (2014), “Organisational sustainability policies and
employee green behaviour: the mediating role of work climate perceptions”, Journal of
Environmental Psychology, Vol. 38, pp. 49-54.
O’donohue, W. and Torugsa, N. (2016), “The moderating effect of ‘green’HRM on the association
between proactive environmental management and financial performance in small firms”, The GHRM
International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 27, pp. 239-261. practices and
Paill´e, P., Boiral, O. and Chen, Y. (2013), “Linking environmental management practices and employees’
organizational citizenship behaviour for the environment: a social exchange perspective”, The OCBE
International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 24, pp. 3552-3575.
Pinzone, M., Guerci, M., Lettieri, E. and Redman, T. (2016), “Progressing in the change journey
towards sustainability in healthcare: the role of ‘Green’HRM”, Journal of Cleaner Production,
Vol. 122, pp. 201-211.
Podsakoff, P.M., Mackenzie, S.B., Lee, J.-Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003a), “Common method biases
in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”, Journal
of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88, pp. 879.
Podsakoff, P.M., Mackenzie, S.B. Lee, J., and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003b), “Common method biases in
behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and rec-ommended remedies”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 88, pp. 879-903.
Preacher, K.J. and Hayes, A.F. (2008), “Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and
comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models”, Behavior Research Methods, Vol. 40
No. 3, pp. 879-891.
Preacher, K.J., Rucker, D.D., and Hayes, A.F. (2007), “Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses:
theory, methods, and prescriptions”, Multivariate Behavioral Research, Vol. 42 No. 1,
pp. 185-227.
Raineri, N. and Paill´e, P. (2016), “Linking corporate policy and supervisory support
with environmental citizenship behaviors: the role of employee environmental beliefs and
commitment”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 137, pp. 129-148.
Ramus, C.A. and Killmer, A.B. (2007), “Corporate greening through prosocial extrarole behaviours–
a conceptual framework for employee motivation”, Business Strategy and the Environment,
Vol. 16, pp. 554-570.
Ramus, C.A. and Steger, U. (2000), “The roles of supervisory support behaviors and environmental
policy in employee “ecoinitiatives” at leading-edge European companies”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 43, No. 4, pp. 605-626.
Ren, S., Tang, G. and Jackson, S.E. (2018), “Green human resource management research in
emergence: a review and future directions”, Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Vol. 35,
pp. 769-803.
Renwick, D.W., Jabbour, C.J., Muller-Camen, M., Redman, T. and Wilkinson, A. (2016),
“Contemporary Developments in Green (Environmental) HRM Scholarship”, International
Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 114-128.
Renwick, D.W., Redman, T. and Maguire, S. (2013), “Green human resource management: a review
and research agenda”, International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 15, pp. 1-14.
Robertson, J.L. and Barling, J. (2013), “Greening organizations through leaders’ influence on
employees’ pro-environmental behaviors”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 34, pp.
176-194.
Roscoe, S., Subramanian, N., Jabbour, C.J.C. and Chong, T. (2019), “Green human resource
management and the enablers of green organisational culture: enhancing a firm’s
environmental performance for sustainable development”, Business Strategy and the
Environment, Vol. 28, pp. 737-749.
Schultz, P.W., Gouveia, V.V., Cameron, L.D., Tankha, G., Schmuck, P. and Franˇek, M.J. (2005),
“Values and their relationship to environmental concern and conservation behavior”, Journal
of Cross- cultural Psychology, Vol. 36, pp. 457-475.
Shen, J., Dumont, J. and Deng, X. (2016), “Employees’ perceptions of green HRM and non-green
employee work outcomes the social identity and stakeholder perspectives”, Group &
Organization Management, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 594-622.
IJM Shen, J., Dumont, J. and Deng, X. (2018), “Employees’ perceptions of green HRM and non-green
employee work outcomes: the social identity and stakeholder perspectives”, Group &
Organization Management, Vol. 43, 594-622.
Simpson, D. and Samson, D.J. (2010), “Environmental strategy and low waste operations: exploring
complementarities”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 19, pp. 104-118.
Spreitzer, G.M. (1995), “Psychological empowerment in the workplace: dimensions, measurement,
and validation”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38, pp. 1442-1465.
Stern, P.C., Dietz, T., Abel, T., Guagnano, G.A. and Kalof, L. (1999), “A value-belief-norm theory of
support for social movements: the case of environmentalism”, Human Ecology Review, Vol. 6
No. 2, pp. 81-97.
Subramanian, N., Abdulrahman, M.D., Wu, L. and Nath, P. (2016), “Green competence framework:
evidence from China”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 27,
pp. 151-172.
Tariq, S., Jan, F.A. and Ahmad, M.S. (2016), “Green employee empowerment: a systematic literature
review on state-of-art in green human resource management”, Quality and Quantity, Vol. 50,
pp. 237-269.
Venturelli, A., Caputo, F., Leopizzi, R., Mastroleo, G. and Mio, C. (2017), “How can CSR identity be
evaluated? A pilot study using a Fuzzy Expert System”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol.
141, pp. 1000-1010.
Wagner, M. (2011), “Environmental management activities and sustainable HRM in German
manufacturing firms–incidence, determinants, and outcomes”, German Journal of Human
Resource Management: Zeitschrift fu€r Personalforschung, Vol. 25, pp. 157-177.
Yusliza, M.-Y., Othman, N.Z. and Jabbour, C.J.C. (2017), “Deciphering the implementation of green
human resource management in an emerging economy”, Journal of Management Development,
Vol. 36, pp. 1230-1246.

Appendix

Items Factor loadings

The green work that I do is very important for me 0.820
My activities are personally meaningful to me 0.809
The green work I do is meaningful to me 0.783
I am confident about my ability to do my jobs 0.764
I am self-assured about my capacities to perform my green work activities 0.735
Appendix 1. I have mastered the skills necessary of my green job 0.689
Factor loadings to I have significant autonomy in determining how I do my green job 0.687
green employee I can decide on my own how to go about doing my green work 0.720
empowerment I have considerable opportunity for independence and freedom in how I do my green job 0.680
Items
GHRM
practices and
GHRM employees’
My organization sets green goals for its employees
My organization provides employees with green training to promote green values OCBE
My organization provides employees with green training to develop employees’ knowledge and skills
required for green management
My organization considers employees’ workplace green behavior in performance appraisals
My organization relates employees’ workplace green behaviors to rewards and compensation
My organization considers employees’ workplace green behaviors in promotion
Green employee empowerment
The green work that I do is very important for me
My activities are personally meaningful to me
The green work I do is meaningful to me
I am confident about my ability to do my jobs
I am self-assured about my capacities to perform my green work activities
I have mastered the skills necessary of my green job
I have significant autonomy in determining how I do my green job
I can decide on my own how to go about doing my green work
I have considerable opportunity for independence and freedom in how I do my green job
Individual green values
I feel a personal obligation to do whatever I can to prevent environmental degradation
I feel personally obliged to save as much energy as possible
I feel morally obliged to save energy, regardless of what others do
Organizational citizenship behavior toward the environment (OCBE)
I suggest new practices that could improve the environmental performance of my organization
I encourage my colleagues to adopt more environmentally conscious behavior
I stay informed of my organization’s environmental initiatives
I make suggestions about ways to protect the environment more effectively Appendix 2.
I volunteer for projects or activities that address environmental issues in my organization A list of questions on
I spontaneously give my time to help my colleagues take the environment into account which the factors were
I undertake environmental actions that contribute positively to the image of my organization constructed

Corresponding author
Rana Muhammad Naeem can be contacted at: naeemrana426@gmail.com

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com