HR Journal 2
HR Journal 2
HR Journal 2
The concept and processes of strategic human resource management (SHRM) developed
in the late 1970s and the 1980s as a way of managing employees in an increasingly
turbulent and fast-changing, uncertain environment. SHRM explicitly linked people
management policies and practices to the achievement of organisational outcomes and
performance, most particularly financial and market outcomes. Although some SHRM
frameworks recognised the influence of employment policies on behaviours, productivity
and other employee outcomes, the value of these outcomes was reflected in their
contribution to organisational performance, rather than any value accruing to the
employees (Miles and Snow 1984; Schuler and Jackson 1987; Lundy and Cowling 1996;
Lengnick-Hall, Lengnick-Hall, Andrade and Drake 2009). A significant body of research
was conducted on the link between human resource management (HRM) practices and
financial outcomes (Huselid 1995; Pfeffer 1998). This research was complemented by
research on the mediating factors resulting from HRM practices which contributed to these
financial outcomes (Richard and Johnson 2001; Macky and Boxall 2008).
A more recent approach to managing people has emerged. This approach explicitly
recognises the impact people management policies have on both human and financial
*Email: [email protected]
outcomes. Unlike the emphasis of the SHRM approach, this approach explicitly
recognises the legitimacy of organisational practices, particularly HRM practices, in
furthering a wider range of outcomes. These outcomes could include impacts on
individuals or groups within an organisation (human outcomes) and impacts on groups of
people and the relationships between people (social outcomes). This alternative approach
also includes writers (Avery 2005; Dunphy, Griffiths and Benn 2007) who explicitly
acknowledge the impact of HRM on ecological/environmental outcomes. In addition, this
approach explicitly acknowledges the shadow side of HRM, that is it acknowledges the
possibility of the negative impacts on human, social and ecological/environmental
outcomes. This more recent approach has been labelled sustainable human resource
management (sustainable HRM). The term sustainable HRM has been conceptualised in a
variety of ways. It has been referred to in different countries and HR-related literatures
(Wilkinson, Hill and Gollan 2001; Mariappanadar 2003, 2012; Ehnert 2006, 2009; Clarke
2011). The literature on sustainable HRM has developed during the past decade and it
represents an attempt to grapple with the relationship between HRM practices and
outcomes beyond predominantly financial outcomes.
This paper is concerned with exploring whether the sustainable HRM approach to
managing people in work organisations represents a new approach to managing people.
The first part of the paper examines the concepts of and relationships between
sustainability, SHRM and HRM. The second part examines sustainable HRM as an
approach to managing people. The third part explores the issue of whether sustainable
HRM represents a new approach to managing people and draws out the features at the
heart of sustainable HRM. This is followed by a conclusion which draws out the possible
future development of sustainable HRM.
Sustainability
Sustainability is an imprecise term that has evolved since its application in the contexts of
the environment and population growth. Discussion about sustainability was fuelled by
the Brundtland Commission of the United Nations. The Brundtland Commission (the
Commission) took a broad view of sustainable development which was global, long term
and took into account a variety of stakeholders. It identified three pillars of sustainable
development. These pillars were economic, social and environmental. This approach
reflected not only the Commission’s concern for the degradation of the environment, but
also concern for the social impact and continued waste of HRs resulting from the
prevailing nature of economic growth and development (Brundtland 1987).
As Ehnert and Harry (2012) highlight, the Brundtland view of sustainability provoked
interest in a range of concepts concerned with the responsibilities of business. These
concepts include corporate social responsibility (CSR) and corporate social performance
(CSP). The essence of CSR is that organisations have not only economic and legal
responsibilities but also ethical and philanthropic responsibilities. The concept of CSP
The International Journal of Human Resource Management 1071
extends CSR by emphasising the organisations impact on the social sphere and assessing
performance in terms of the measurement of the organisations social goals (Carroll
2008). By their very nature when these concepts of responsibility are considered within
the context of work organisations, they require consideration of the impact of
organisational activities on a number of stakeholders. They also enable an assessment of
organisational outcomes, performance and impacts beyond just the financial and
economic arena.
The Brundtland approach has been applied to organisations and businesses and can be
regarded as one way of understanding sustainability in the world of business. This
approach builds on the concept of the three pillars by proposing that three organisational
outcomes, financial performance, social and ecological/environmental impacts, need to be
considered as dimensions of organisational performance (Elkington 1997). This approach
focuses on both the external impacts of an organisation and the internal impacts. It also
views sustainability in terms of short- and longer-term impacts on a variety of
stakeholders.
This stakeholder approach to sustainability is informed by an open-systems
framework which recognises the interconnection and interaction of stakeholders,
organisational systems and sub-systems, social systems and the environment in which
these systems operate (Benn and Bolton 2011, p. 218). Accordingly, in order to take
actions to further sustainability, members of organisations are required to engage a variety
of stakeholders who will have different perspectives and values. Engagement in this
process therefore requires an acceptance of ambiguity, uncertainty and the development
of the skills required to understand different perspectives or mental models (Kramar
2009).
An alternative way of understanding sustainability is to frame it in terms of businesses
operating in a neoliberal form of capitalism, rather than acknowledging the need to take
into account a range of stakeholder interests. When this approach is taken, sustainability
gives precedence to one stakeholder, the owners, usually the shareholders of business
organisations. Friedman (1970) is well-known for promoting this approach to
sustainability. He argues that managers and executives are agents of the principals of
the organisation and are therefore primarily responsible to them. When this principle is
applied to business organisations, particularly corporations, he claims
In a free-enterprise, private property system, a corporate executive is an employee of the
owners of the business . . . . Direct responsibility to his employers. That responsibility is to
conduct the business in accordance with their desires, which will generally be to make as
much money as possible while conforming to the rules of society. (Friedman 1970, p. 32)
This view is explicitly based on the assumption that market mechanisms are the
appropriate way to determine the allocation of scarce resources. Clearly then, managers
and executives are not responsible to other stakeholders or for outcomes beyond those of
the short- and long-term financial outcomes which benefit the ‘owners’ of the organisation.
Therefore, some actions which are framed in terms of social responsibility actions, such as
investment in amenities in communities or allowing employees to undertake volunteering
activities, are in effect designed to further financial/economic outcomes. These actions are
therefore undertaken to further the sustainability of the organisation and to ultimately
benefit the owners of the organisation. This approach to sustainability, however, neglects
the short- and long-term negative impacts on a variety of stakeholders. These stakeholders
include employees, members of society, future generations and natural/ecological
resources (Dunphy et al. 2007). The essence of this form of sustainability is on
organisational survival and longevity.
1072 R. Kramar
and awareness of values (Dunphy et al. 2007; Taylor 2007; Kramar 2009; Jackson,
Renwick, Jabbour and Muller-Camen 2011).
This interest in the intersection between SHRM and sustainability and the proposed
directions for future development of SHRM, challenge some of the basic premises and
frameworks underpinning SHRM. The first fundamental premise is that HRM choices are
made because of their contribution to business or organisational outcomes, even when
concerns are expressed about whether HRM practices cause organisational performance
results (Patterson et al. 1997; Legge 2005). The second premise challenges the supremacy
of the interests of one stakeholder, the owners of the organisation, and requires
consideration of the impact on other stakeholders. The following discussion examines the
literature on sustainable HRM. The discussion will draw attention to whether this literature
challenges these two aspects of SHRM.
Sustainable HRM
The term sustainable HRM has been used for more than a decade. The literature is
piecemeal, diverse and fraught with difficulties. There is no one precise definition of the
term and it has been used in a variety of ways. The writings on sustainable HRM differ in
terms of the emphasis given to particular internal and external outcomes. It has been used
to refer to social and human outcomes which contribute to the continuation of the
organisation in the long term, that is to a sustainable organisation. It has also been used to
refer to HRM activities which enhance positive environmental outcomes Green HRM
(GHRM), and positive social and human outcomes for their own sake, rather than just as
mediating factors between financial outcomes and strategy. As with the terms HRM,
SHRM and sustainability, there are definitional issues with the term sustainable HRM.
A number of terms have been used to link sustainability and HRM activities. These
include sustainable work systems (SWSs; Docherty, Forslin, Shani and Kira 2002), HR
sustainability (Gollan 2000; Wirtenberg, Harmon, Russell and Fairfield 2007), sustainable
management of HRs (Ehnert 2006, 2009, 2011), sustainable leadership (Avery 2005;
Avery and Bergsteiner 2010) and sustainable HRM (Marriappanadar 2003; 2012). In
addition, the term sustainable organisation (Dunphy et al. 2007) has been used. Although
these terms differ in the extent to which they attempt to reconcile the goals of economic
competitiveness, positive human/social outcomes and ecological outcomes, they are all
concerned with acknowledging either explicitly or implicitly human and social outcomes
of the organisation. They all recognise the impact HR outcomes have on the survival and
success of the organisation. All of the above terms are subsumed in this paper under the
broad term of sustainable HRM. In addition, some of the research which explore
the relationship between HRM and broad economic, social and ecological/environmental
outcomes, but does not include ‘sustainable’ as a term, particularly GHRM, will be
considered within the examination of sustainable HRM.
Unlike SHRM, which proposes HRM practices should be designed to further
organisational strategy and economic outcomes, a common feature of the writings on
sustainable HRM is that HRM practices contribute to the development of human and
social capital within the organisation. In addition, some of these writings (Mariappanadar
2003, 2012; Dunphy et al. 2007; Avery and Bergsteiner 2010) also acknowledge that there
is a growing concern about the impact of HRM policies on externalities, such as the
environment and social and human aspects of society. Some of this literature also (Jackson
et al. 2011) acknowledged that HRM practices will influence the extent to which people
are attracted to work for an organisation or to purchase its products and services.
1076 R. Kramar
The literature on sustainable HRM can be categorised into three groups. A common
feature of all of these groups is an understanding that sustainability refers to long-term and
durable outcomes. However, the writers in these various categories understand
sustainability and its relationship to HRM in different ways. The groups are categorised
in terms of their outcomes. One group emphasises economic outcomes and the creation of
‘sustainable competitive advantage’. This group, known as ‘Capability Reproduction’,
focuses on the internal impacts of HRM policies (Wilkinson et al. 2001; Ehnert 2009; Clarke
2011). Another group, titled ‘Promoting Social and Environmental Health’, emphasises
external outcomes, such as broader performance outcomes including ecological/
environmental and/or social and human outcomes (Mariappanadar 2003; Orlitzky, Schmidt
and Rynes 2003; Collinson, Cobb, Power and Stevenson 2007). A third group, labelled
‘Connections’, moves beyond just HRM practices and examines the interrelationships
between management practices, including HRM and organisational outcomes, which
include environmental and social outcomes. This includes the literature on sustainable
leadership (Avery 2005). This literature acknowledges the influence of national contexts on
management practices while the literature on sustainable organisation explores the
relationship between HRM policies and environmental sustainability (Dunphy et al. 2007)
and is concerned with the explicit connections between a variety of internal and external
outcomes and HRM practices. These groups are not mutually exclusive. However, these
three categories provide a simple means of drawing out the major distinctions between the
writings on sustainable HRM. These three groups are discussed in the following section.
Capability reproduction
There is a substantial body of literature (see, for instance, Ehnert 2009; Clarke 2011;
Browning and Delahaye 2011; Wells 2011) which links HRM practices to internal outcomes,
particularly economic outcomes. As discussed in the previous section, research using the
SHRM framework demonstrates that HRM practices contribute to financial outcomes
through mediating factors that represent human outcomes. These outcomes include job
satisfaction, engagement and positive psychological contract. Unlike the SHRM literature,
sustainable HRM writers who emphasise economic outcomes explicitly identify two
performance outcomes for the organisation: economic and social/human. These writers are
particularly concerned with fostering economic outcomes and organisational sustainability in
the longer term through HRM practices which contribute to positive human/social outcomes.
According to these writers, the concept of sustainable HRM represents a new, holistic
approach to people management and it represents an extension of SHRM. This approach
argues that particular HRM practices are essential for the development of the human
capabilities required to operate in an environment facing environmental, demographic and
social pressures (Wilkinson et al. 2001; Ehnert 2009; Clarke 2011).
Ehnert (2009, p. 74) provides a definition of sustainable HRM which recognises the
presence of ambiguity and duality. She states,
Sustainable HRM is the pattern of planned or emerging human resource strategies and
practices intended to enable a organizational goal achievement while simultaneously
reproducing the HR base over a long-lasting calendar time and controlling for self induced
side and feedback effects on the HR systems on the HR base and thus on the company itself.
(Ehnert 2009, p. 74)
According to Ehnert, ‘the main objectives of sustainable HRM are (1) to balance the
ambiguities and duality of efficiency and sustainability over a long-lasting calendar
year; (2) to sustain, develop and reproduce an organisation’s human and social resource
The International Journal of Human Resource Management 1077
base, e.g. help the mutual exchange relationships; and (3) to evaluate and assess negative
effects of HR activities on the HR base and on the sources for HR’ (Ehnert 2006, p. 14).
This definition extends the previous definitions which focus primarily on outcomes, by
also acknowledging the processes involved in sustainable HRM.
According to this definition, sustainable HR assumes that an organisation is an open
system that needs to develop and regenerate its HRs at least as fast as it ‘consumes’ them.
Dualities and dilemmas for HR practitioners are recognised in sustainable management of
HR. HR practitioners are faced with the need to further efficiency and at the same time
invest in the development of human capability. Managers in organisations also need to
acknowledge the interrelationship between the environment and organisational resources
(Muller-Christ 2001 cited in Ehnert 2006).
A wide variety of HRM practices have been found to contribute to these positive
internal and external outcomes. These include HRM practices such as collaborative HR
development (Browning and Delahaye 2011), organisational structures which facilitate
employee participation and direct communication with employees (Donnelly and Proctor-
Thomson 2011), work roles and performance evaluation which focus on building on
employee strengths and facilitating performance (Wells 2011).
Some of the literature in this category appears to resemble HRM packages such as
HPWS or high performance work practices (HPWP), rather than a new approach to people
management. However, the difference between these earlier models of HRM and
sustainable HRM is the explicit focus on long-term social/human outcomes by the
sustainable HRM writers. For instance, Wilkinson et al. (2001) argue that HR
sustainability requires a ‘shift in focus from short term corporate survival to long-term
business success’ and a focus on positive employee outcomes (pp. 1498 –1499).
Writers (Docherty et al. 2002; Docherty, Kira and Shani 2009; Kira 2002) on SWSs also
focus on human/social outcomes. They seek to have negative human/social outcomes
identified at the individual, organisational and societal level and to develop SWS which
result in the renewal and development of the organisation’s human and social capital
(Ehnert 2006). They acknowledge the detrimental impact of HR developments such as work
intensification, temporary employment, excessive performance standards and ambiguous
job roles on individual well-being, organisational culture and family and community health
and satisfaction. A central interest of this group is the development of HRM practices that
result in positive human/social outcomes such as work –life balance, as well as
organisational economic outcomes and sustainable change processes (Docherty et al. 2002;
Ehnert 2006). These writers demonstrate characteristics of both the first group and the
second group of writers. However, they are not concerned with ecological outcomes.
Most aspects of this approach have been captured in a model described by Ehnert (2009,
p. 172). The model is based on an open-systems framework. The model does not adequately
capture the negative external and internal consequences of HRM practice. However, these
consequences could be added to the model. The model also fails to capture the difference
between policy and the practice resulting from implementation and the dualities, complexities
and ambiguities in HRM policy and practice. Although the model identifies the socio-economic
context of organisations, it does not adequately identify the influences of these contexts,
nor do they demonstrate how strategy could be influenced by an organisation’s actions.
relationship between HRM and external outcomes which are typically representative of
CSR and the triple bottom line (economic, social and environmental outcomes). It is
noteworthy that much of this literature identifies the way in which social/human outcomes
and/or environmental outcomes contribute to economic and financial outcomes.
Therefore, many of these writers reflect the efficiency-oriented approach to sustainability.
The term sustainable management of HR has been used to refer to HRM practices
which contribute to both positive ecological/environmental and human/social outcomes,
with the intended purpose of achieving economic results (Ehnert 2006). This represents a
concern with achieving internal and external outcomes. It has been found that companies
which display good social/human and ecological/environmental practices have a positive
impact on a business’s financial performance (Orlitzky et al. 2003; Branco and Rodrigues
2006). In addition, companies involved in ethical investments have been shown to have
better financial performance than other companies (Collinson et al. 2007), while markets
reward companies that are environmentally responsive (Schnietz and Epstein 2005;
Wahba 2007). Performing well on social/human and environmental indicators represents a
form of strategic investment and is a means of satisfying a variety of stakeholder
expectations.
This emphasis on economic outcomes from social/human and ecological/
environmental outcomes is reflected in the focus of research and the practitioner
understanding of the term sustainability. Walsh, Weber and Margolis (2003) demonstrated
that of the 121 papers which empirically examined the relationship between CSR
outcomes and corporate financial performance, 100 of these ‘attach CSR to an economic
rationale’ (p. 868). This is supported by research on the understanding by HR professionals
on ‘sustainability in HRM’ in eight European countries. This research demonstrated that in
all countries except Switzerland, the economic outcomes were given primacy (Zaugg,
Blum and Thom 2001).
Other writers (Mariappanadar 2003, 2012) within this broad groups focus on the impact
of HRM on externalities, particularly social and human externalities. These outcomes
include family and community well-being, employee health, government policy and
expenditure. These writers are primarily concerned with negative externalities. Negative
externalities refers to ‘something that costs the organization nothing for their actions or
business practices, but those actions or business practices are costly to third parties’
(Mariappanadar 2012, p. 5). While this acknowledges the impact of HRM practices on
external parties, it does not deal with the influence of external factors on HRM.
These writers raise the importance of HRM policies on outcomes other than social/
human outcomes. In most cases, these are ecological outcomes. Most writers, however,
fail to adequately address the influence of broader macroeconomic factors and they view
non-financial outcomes as mediating factors for financial outcomes.
‘Connections’
This group examines the interrelationships between management practices, including HRM
and organisational outcomes. These outcomes include environmental, social and financial
outcomes. Implicit in these writings is a moral concern with organisations behaving
responsibly. The literature on sustainable leadership acknowledges the influence of national
contexts on management practices (Avery 2005; Avery and Bergsteiner 2010), while the
literature on change for sustainability and sustainable organisations (Dunphy et al. 2007)
and the GHRM literature (Renwick, Redman and Maguire 2011) recognises the
The International Journal of Human Resource Management 1079
from the view that HR outcomes contributed to financial outcomes and the
organisations survival.
According to this research, organisations in Switzerland regard sustainable HRM as
part of the ‘Swiss tradition of harmonious co-existence of employees, corporations and
society’ (Ehnert 2006, p. 8). Employees are regarded as equal partners with management,
and are assumed to participate in decisions and take responsibility for their careers. HRM
practices improve the long-term development of employees so they are useful to their
families and the community. Three practices are regarded as particularly significant:
employee development, reward systems and the integration of sustainability into company
strategies, goals and culture (Thom 2002 in Ehnert 2006).
According to Avery and Bergsteiner (2010), sustainable leadership ‘refers to achieving
futures in which humans live within their ecological and social means, without exploiting
other parties’ (p. 30). They (Avery 2005; Avery and Bergsteiner 2010) argue that this
approach is dominate in European countries which adopt the Rhineland approach to
economic theory, and although it is influenced by the national institutional and social
contexts, it is an approach to managing people and a ‘leadership’ philosophy which can be
adopted in a variety of national contexts.
outcomes would include a range of social and ecological outcomes. Such a focus
recognises the interconnectedness of the many aspects of the organisation, the people in
the organisation and the external environment.
The sustainable HRM literature raises theoretical issues associated with features of
HRM. These features include the dynamic nature of HRM and its outcomes, the
interconnectedness of external, internal and individual people aspects of organisations and
a requirement to consider outcomes in terms of not just organisational economic
outcomes, but in terms of economic, social and ecological outcomes for a variety of
stakeholders. An open-systems framework as elaborated in Figure 1 provides a framework
that can be used as a model for framing sustainable HRM.
This model builds on Ehnert’s model (2009, p. 172). It takes into account the literature
on negative externalities (Mariappanadar 2003, 2012) and SWSs (Kira 2002) and
highlights the importance of making explicit the moral position underpinning a sustainable
HRM framework. It recognises that some stakeholders will lose as a result of HRM
policies. They will lose in the short term (e.g. employees losing their jobs or being
overworked) and in the long term (e.g. governments needing to provide for these
employees). Therefore, the model acknowledges HRM processes will have negative and
positive outcomes on different stakeholders. It also acknowledges the influence of the
institutional contexts of an organisation. The economic, social, regulatory and
technological contexts are influenced and influence the development of strategy and
HRM policies.
As Figure 1 reveals, the outcomes of sustainable HRM can be measured by evaluating
organisational, social, individual and ecological outcomes. Measures would need to
evaluate outcomes such as the quality of the employment relationship, the health and well-
being of the workforce, productivity (organisational); the quality of relationships at work,
organisation being an employer of choice and being recognised among a range of potential
sources of labour (social); and job satisfaction, employee motivation and work – life
balance (individual); use of resources, such as energy, paper, water use, production of
green products and services and costs associated with work travel (ecological). The
appropriate measures would need to be developed for an individual organisation and then
cascaded down to all employees using HRM practices, such as role design, performance
indicators and rewards.
Some of the writers on sustainable HRM raise issues for the practice of HRM. These
issues focus on the capabilities, the complexity and ambiguities associated with HRM
execution and implementation and the role of HR professionals. The specific capabilities
identified are those required to operate in the current and future environment (Wilkinson
et al. 2001; Enhert 2006, 2009; Clarke 2011) and particularly in an increasingly fragile
ecological environment (Renwick et al. 2011).
Processes of HRM have been framed within the SHRM literature predominantly
within a rational view of organisations. The exception is Colbert (2004) who applies a
complexity lens to the resource-based view. Although there is no explicit discussion
within the sustainable HRM literature about the role of an emergent iterative approach to
HRM process, this would appear to be an important process for enabling an exploration of
the competing outcomes desired by various stakeholders (Kramar 2012). This literature
provides a key to differentiating sustainable HRM from SHRM.
Paradoxes can be represented as two or more contradictions which operate
simultaneously. Ehnert (2009) developed a paradox framework for sustainable HRM
which illustrates the key tensions between the efficient use of people and maintaining the
human capabilities, the tensions between efficiency and substance rationality and
relational rationality, and developments over time. This is a very useful framework;
however, it is unable to deal with the issue of execution and implementation. This
framework is represented in Figure 2.
Writers (Kramar 1992; Bowen and Ostroff 2004; Becker and Huselid 2006; Khili and
Wang 2006; Purcell and Hutchinson 2007; Teo and Rodwell 2007; Stanton et al. 2010)
using an SHRM approach have paid attention to the issue of execution and implementation
of HRM policies. These studies are useful in identifying the reasons for inconsistent
understandings of HRM within an organisation, the failure to implement formal policy and
the experience of HRM practices.
CEOs, middle and line managers play an essential role in implementation (Mayrhofer
et al. 2004; Purcell and Hutchinson 2007). The CEO provides legitimacy to HRM policies,
commits resources and influences within-group agreement within the organisational
hierarchy (Bowen and Ostroff 2004; Bartram et al. 2007; Stanton et al. 2010). Middle and
line managers are essential for the implementation of HRM policies and plans (Purcell and
Hutchinson 2007; Teo and Rodwell 2007). These managers are critical for developing
employee commitment and they need to behave in ways that are consistent and
reciprocated by employees.
Implementation of HRM policies can be enhanced with CEO support and the receipt of
consistent messages by line and middle managers and employees. These messages should
indicate desired employee behaviour, the link between HRM and performance and the
relevance of the policies. At the same time, the HR policies need to be perceived as fair
and be understood. In addition, there needs to be a perception of agreement among
principal decision-makers and legitimacy of authority (Bowen and Ostroff 2004; Bartram
et al. 2007; Stanton et al. 2010). Other factors contributing to effective implementation
include the use of cultural and structural changes in developing effective HRM systems,
employee involvement, family – friendly policies and making HRM departments
accessible (Khilji and Wang 2006). The implementation of HRM is not a neutral process
but involves political aspects (Kramar 1992; Bartram et al. 2007; Sheehan, Cooper,
Holland and De Cieri 2007), social, cultural and power factors (Kramar 1992). The
practice of HRM cannot be explained by rational choice because people involved in
developing and implementing HR policies operate in a context of conflicting pressures.
In order to understand the actual practice of HRM, the factors influencing
implementation need to be explicitly represented in a model. Figure 3 provides a
preliminary attempt to represent these influences. This figure provides additional detail
about the translation of policies into practices. This figure can be used in conjunction with
Figures 1 and 2 to understand the purpose and processes embodied in sustainable HRM.
The sustainable HRM literature highlights some significant aspects of organisational
outcomes which challenge the SHRM view of outcomes. Human outcomes, either for the
purpose of organisational survival or for their own sake, are a consistent theme of this
literature. In addition, some of the literature explicitly raises the importance of HRM
practices for ecological outcomes. The identification of these outcomes has implications
for the metrics and indicators of HRM performance. As mentioned previously, the
identification and therefore the measurement of negative outcomes, not just positive
outcomes, would be an important component of sustainable HRM. In addition, these
outcomes would include outcomes, within the organisation and outside the organisation.
This is done in Figure 1.
SHRM developed in a dynamic turbulent context in which institutions such as trade
unions were being challenged and the nature of work was changing with the creation of
more part-time and service work. The globalisation of business fuelled competition
between organisations and this fostered increasing concern on building shareholder value.
It was argued that HRM practices could create this value and deliver results to the business
through people (Ulrich 1997; Ulrich and Brockbank 2005). This emphasis on the
1084 R. Kramar
Within the current uncertain global economic, social and ecological climate, the
literature on sustainable HRM will continue to evolve. Sustainable HRM represents a new
approach to managing people, by identifying broader purposes for HRM, through its
recognition of the complexities of workplace dynamics and the explicit recognition of the
need to avoid negative impacts of HRM practices. It is important to acknowledge that
aspects of SHRM and PM are an integral part of sustainable HRM. Therefore,
organisational outcomes such as return on investment, market share and profit are still part
of sustainable HRM, as are operational activities. A body of knowledge on sustainable
HRM is developing; however, the challenge of integrating these into management practice
in the workplace is indeed problematic.
Some of the suggested measures for evaluating sustainable HRM practices are already
used in organisations. These measures include climate, well-being and work –life balance
surveys, prediction of future demand and supply of capabilities through workforce
planning and the estimation of the carbon footprint of an organisation. However, the
implication of a sustainable HRM approach is that these measures are systematically
adopted and form part of a broad HRM strategy.
Sustainable HRM will continue to develop as a concept in the future. It takes an
explicit moral position, requires a multidisciplinary approach and needs to be informed by
theories which enable an understanding of ambiguity, feedback between action and
outcomes and complexity. Critical processes will involve iterative and emergent
processes, stakeholder management and a recognition of the interdependence of processes
at a number of levels. Sustainable HRM offers many opportunities for researchers from a
variety of disciplines and an opportunity to improve management practice.
References
Arthur, J.B. (1994), ‘Effects of Human Resource Systems on Manufacturing Performance and
Turnover,’ Academy of Management Journal, 37, 3, 670– 687.
Australian Council of Trade Unions (2012), ‘Lives on Hold: Unlocking the Potential of Australia’s
Workforce,’ The Report of the Independent Inquiry into Insecure Employment, ACTU, www.
actu.org.au
Avery, G. (2005), Leadership for Sustainable Futures: Achieving Success in a Competitive World,
Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Avery, G., and Bergsteiner, H. (2010), Honeybees and Locusts: The Business Case for Sustainable
Leadership, St. Leonards: Allen & Unwin.
Bachaus, K., Stone, B., and Heiner, K. (2002), ‘Exploring the Relationship Between Corporate
Social Performance and Employer Effectiveness,’ Business and Society, 41, 3, 319– 344.
Bartram, T., Stanton, P., Leggat, S., Casimir, C., and Fraser, B. (2007), ‘Lost in Transition:
Exploring the Link Between HRM and Performance in Healthcare,’ Human Resource
Management Journal, 17, 1, 21 – 41.
Becker, B.E., and Huselid, M.A. (2006), ‘Strategic Human Resource Management: Where Do We
Go From Here?’ Journal of Management, 32, 6, 898– 925.
Beer, M., Spector, R., Lawrence, P., Quinn Mills, D., and Walton, R. (1984), Human Resource
Management: A General Managers Perspective, Glencoe III: Free Press.
Benn, S., and Bolton, D. (2011), Key Concepts in Corporate Social Responsibility, London: Sage.
Benn, S., Dunphy, D., and Perrott, B. (eds.) (2011), Cases in Corporate Sustainability and Change,
Melbourne: Tilde University Press.
Bowen, D.E., and Ostroff, C. (2004), ‘Understanding HRM-firm Performance Linkages: The Role of
“Strength” of the HRM System,’ Academy of Management Review, 29, 203– 221.
Boxall, P., and Macky, K. (2009), ‘Research and Theory on High-Performance Work Systems:
Progressing the High-Involvement Stream,’ Human Resource Management Journal, 19, 1,
3 – 23.
Boxall, P., and Purcell, J. (2008), Strategy and Human Resource Management, Hampshire: Palgrave
Macmillan.
1086 R. Kramar
Boxall, P., Purcell, J., and Wright, P.M., (eds.) (2007), ‘Human Resource Management: Scope,
Analysis and Significance,’ in The Oxford Handbook of Human Resource Management, Oxford:
Oxford University Press, pp. 1 – 6.
Brammer, S., Millington, A., and Rayton, B. (2007), ‘Exploring the Relationship Between Corporate
Social Responsibility to Organisational Commitment,’ The International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 18, 10, 1701– 1719.
Branco, M., and Rodrigues, L. (2006), ‘Corporate Social Responsibility and Resource-Based
Perspectives,’ Journal of Business Ethics, 69, 2, 111– 132.
Browning, V., and Delahaye, B. (2011), ‘Enhancing Workplace Learning Through Collaborative
HRD,’ in Readings in HRM and Sustainability, ed. M. Clarke, Melbourne: Tilde University
Press, pp. 36 – 50.
Brundtland, G. (ed.) (1987), Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development:
Our Common Future, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bunge, J., Cohen-Rosenthal, E., and Ruiz-Quintanilla, A. (1996), ‘Employment Participation in
Pollution Reduction: Preliminary Analysis of the Toxic Release Inventory,’ Journal of Cleaner
Production, 4, 453– 470.
Carroll, A.B. (2008), A History of Corporate Social Responsibility: Concepts and Practices, Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Clarke, M. (ed.) (2011), ‘Sustainable HRM: A New Approach to People Management,’ in Readings
in HRM and Sustainability, Melbourne: Tilde University Press, pp. 1 – 7.
Colbert, B. (2004), ‘The Complex Resource-Based View: Implications for Theory and Practice in
Strategic Human Resource Management,’ Academy of Management Review, 29, 3, 341– 358.
Collins, C.J., and Clark, K.D. (2003), ‘Strategic Human Resource Practices, Top Management
Teams Social Networks, and Firm Performance: The Role of Human Resource Practices in
Creating Organizational Competitive Advantage,’ Academy of Management Journal, 46, 6,
740– 751.
Collinson, D., Cobb, G., Power, D., and Stevenson, L. (2007), ‘The Financial Performance of the
FTSE4 Good Indices,’ Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 15, 1,
14 – 28.
Combs, J., Liu, Y., Hall, A., and Ketchen, D. (2006), ‘How Much Do High Performance Work
Practices Matter? A Meta-Analysis of Their Effects on Organizational Performance,’ Personnel
Psychology, 59, 3, 501–528.
Daily, B.F., and Su, C.H. (2001), ‘Achieving Sustainability Through Attentions to Human Resource
Factors in Environmental Management,’ International Journal of Operations and Production
Management, 21, 12, 1539– 1552.
DiMaggio, P.J., and Powell, W.W. (1983), ‘The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and
Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields,’ American Sociological Review, 48, 147–160.
Docherty, P., Forslin, J., (Rami) Shani, A.B., and Kira, M. (eds.) (2002), ‘Emerging Work Systems:
From Intensive to Sustainable,’ in Creating Sustainable Work Systems: Emerging Perspectives
and Practice, London: Routledge, pp. 3 – 14.
Docherty, P., Kira, M., and Shani, A.B. (2009), ‘What the World Needs Now is Sustainable Work
Systems,’ in Creating Sustainable Work Systems. Developing Social Sustainability (2nd ed.),
eds. P. Docherty, M. Kira, and A.B. Shani, London: Routledge, pp. 1 – 21.
Donnelly, N., and Proctor-Thomson, S. (2011), ‘Workplace Sustainability and Employee Voice,’ in
Readings in HRM and Sustainability, ed. M. Clarke, Melbourne: Tilde University Press,
pp. 117– 132.
Dunphy, D., Griffiths, A., and Benn, S. (2007), Organization Change for Corporate Sustainability
(2nd ed.), London: Routledge.
Ehnert, I. (2006), ‘Sustainability Issues in Human in Human Resource Management: Linkages,
Theoretical Approaches, and Outlines for an Emerging Field,’ in 21st EIASM SHRM Workshop,
Aston, Birmingham, March 28 – 29.
Ehnert, I. (2009), Sustainable Human Resource Management: A Conceptual and Exploratory
Analysis From a Paradox Perspective, Berlin: Physica-Verlag.
Ehnert, I. (2011), ‘Sustainability and Human Resource Management,’ in The Future of Employment
Relations, eds. A. Wilkinson and K. Townsend, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 215– 237.
Ehnert, I., and Harry, W. (2012), ‘Recent Developments and Future Prospects on Sustainable Human
Resource Management: Introduction to the Special Issue,’ Management Revue, 23, 3, 221–238.
The International Journal of Human Resource Management 1087
Elkington, J. (1997), Cannibals With Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of the 21st Century, Oxford:
Capstone.
Evans, P.A.L. (1999), ‘HRM on the Edge: A Duality Perspective,’ Organization, 6, 2, 325– 338.
Evans, P., and Davis, W.D. (2005), ‘High Performing Work Systems and Organisational
Performance: The Mediating Role of Internal Social Structure,’ Journal of Management, 31, 5,
758– 775.
Friedman, M. (1970), ‘The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase Profits,’ New York Times
Magazine, September 13, 32 – 33.
Frombrun, C.J., Tichy, N.M., and Devanna, M.A. (1984), Strategic Human Resource Management,
New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Gao, S., and Zhang, J. (2006), ‘Stakeholder Engagement, Social Auditing and Corporate
Sustainability,’ Business Process Management Journal, 12, 6, 722– 740.
Gollan, P. (2000), ‘Human Resources, Capabilities and Sustainability,’ in Sustainability: The
Corporate Challenge of the Twenty First Century, eds. D. Dunphy, J. Beneviste, A. Griffiths and
P. Sutton, Sydney: Allen & Unwin, pp. 55 – 77.
Hampden-Turner, C. (1990), Charting the Corporate Mind: Graphic Solutions to Business Conflicts,
New York: Free Press.
Hampden-Turner, C., and Trompenaars, F. (2000), Building Cross-Cultural Competence: How to
Create Wealth From Conflicting Values, Chichester: Wiley.
Huselid, M.A. (1995), ‘The Impact of Human Resource Management Practices on Turnover,
Productivity and Corporate Financial Performance,’ Academy of Management Journal, 38, 3,
635– 670.
Jabbour, C.A., and Santos, F.C.A. (2008), ‘The Central Role of HRM in the Search for Sustainable
Organisations,’ The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19, 12,
2133– 2154.
Jackson, S., Renwick, D., Jabbour, C.J.C., and Muller-Camen, M. (2011), ‘State-of-the-Art and
Future Directions for Green Human Resource Management: Introduction to the Special Issue,’
German Journal of Human Resource Management, 25, 2, 99 – 116.
Jackson, S., and Seo, J. (2010), ‘The Greening of Strategic HRM Scholarship,’ Organization
Management Journal, 7, 4, 278– 290.
Khilji, S.E., and Wang, X. (2006), ‘“Intended” and “Implemented” HRM: The Missing Linchpin in
Strategic Human Resource Management Research,’ The International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 17, 7, 1171– 1189.
Kira, M. (2002), ‘Moving From Consuming to Regenerative Work,’ in Creating Sustainable Work
Systems: Emerging Perspectives and Practice, eds. P. Docherty, J. Forslin and A.B. (Rami)
Shani, London: Routledge, pp. 29– 39.
Kramar, R. (1992), ‘Strategic Human Resource Management: Are the Promises Fulfilled?’ Asia
Pacific Journal of Human Resource Management, 32, 1, 1 – 15.
Kramar, R. (2009), ‘Human Resources,’ in Business Management and Environmental Stewardship,
ed. R. Staib, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 97 –117.
Kramar, R. (2012), ‘Human Resources: An Integral Part of Sustainability,’ in Current Research in
Sustainability, ed. G. Jones, Melbourne: Tilde University Press, pp. 153– 178.
Legge, K. (2005), Human Resource Management: Rhetoric and Realities, Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Lengnick-Hall, M.L., Lengnick-Hall, C.A., Andrade, L.A., and Drake, B. (2009), ‘Strategic Human
Resource Management: The Evolution of the Field,’ Human Resource Management Review, 19,
64 – 85.
Lundy, O., and Cowling, A. (1996), Strategic Human Resource Management, London: Routledge.
MacDuffie, J.P. (1995), ‘Human Resource Bundles on Manufacturing Performance: Organizational
Logic and Flexible Production Systems in the World Auto Industry,’ Industrial and Labor
Relations Review, 48, 2, 197– 221.
Macky, K., and Boxall, P. (2008), ‘High Involvement Work Processes, Work Intensification and
Employee Well-Being: A Study of New Zealand Worker Experiences,’ Asia Pacific Journal of
Human Resources, 46, 1, 38 – 55.
Mariappanadar, S. (2003), ‘Sustainable Human Resource Strategy: The Sustainable and Unstainable
Dilemmas of Retrenchment,’ International Journal of Social Economics, 30, 8, 906–923.
Mariappanadar, S. (2012), ‘The Harm Indicators of Negative Externality of Efficiency Focused
Organisational Practices,’ International Journal of Social Economics, 39, 209– 220.
1088 R. Kramar
Matinez Lucio, M., and Stuart, M. (2011), ‘The State, Public Policy and the Renewal of HRM,’ The
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22, 18, 3661– 3671.
Mayrhofer, W., Muller-Caman, M., Ledolter, J., Strunk, G., and Erten, C. (2004), ‘Devolving
Responsibilities for Human Resources to Line Management? An Empirical Study About
Convergence in Europe,’ Journal for East European Management Studies, 9, 2, 123– 146.
Miles, R.E., and Snow, C.C. (1984), ‘The Network Firm: A Spherical Structure Built on a Human
Investment Philosophy,’ Organizational Dynamics, 23, 218– 235.
Muller-Christ, G. (2001), ‘Nachhaltiges Ressource management: Eine Wirtschaftsokologische
Fundierung Jahrhundert: Aspekte, Aufgaben, Perspektiven,’ Berlin: Springer, pp. 69 – 87, in
Nachhaltiges Innovations management, Wiesbaden: Gabler, pp. 217– 245.
Nikandrou, L., and Papalexandris, N. (2007), ‘The Impact of M&A Experience on Strategic HRM
Practices and Organisational Effectiveness: Evidence From Greek Firms,’ Human Resource
Management Journal, 17, 2, 155– 177.
Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F., and Rynes, S. (2003), ‘Corporate Social Financial Performance: A Meta-
Analysis,’ Organizational Studies, 24, 3, 403–441.
Osland, A., and Osland, J.S. (2007), ‘Aracruz Cellulose: Best Practices Icon but Still at Risk,’
International Journal of Manpower, 8, 435– 450.
Patterson, M.G., West, M.A., Lawthorn, R., and Nickell, S. (1997), Impact of People Management
Practices on Business Performance, (Issues in People Management) 22, London: Institute of
Personnel and Development.
Peterson, D.K. (2004), ‘The Relationship Between Perceptions of Corporate Citizenship and
Organizational Commitment,’ Business and Society, 43, 3, 296–319.
Pfeffer, J. (1998), ‘Seven Practices of Successful Organizations,’ California Management Review,
40, 2, 96 – 124.
Purcell, J., and Hutchinson, S. (2007), ‘Front-Line Managers as Agents in the HRM-Performance
Causal Chain: Theory, Analysis and Evidence,’ Human Resource Management Journal, 17, 1,
3 – 20.
Renwick, D.W.S., Redman, T., and Maguire, S. (2011), ‘Green Human Resource Management: A
Review and Research Agenda,’ International Journal of Management Reviews, 15, 1 – 14.
Richard, O.C., and Johnson, N.B. (2001), ‘Strategic Human Resource Management Effectiveness
and Firm Performance,’ The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 12, 2,
299– 310.
Schnietz, K., and Epstein, M. (2005), ‘Exploring the Financial Value of a Reputation for Corporate
Social Responsibility During a Crisis,’ Corporate Reputation Review, 7, 4, 327– 345.
Schuler, R.S., and Jackson, S.E. (1987), ‘Linking Competitive Strategies With Human Resource
Management Practices,’ Academy of Management Executive, 1, 3, 207– 219.
Schuler, R.S., and Jackson, S.E. (2005), ‘A Quarter-Century Review of Human Resource
Management in the U.S.: The Growth in Importance of the International Perspective,’
Management Revue, 16, 1, 1 – 25.
Sheehan, C., Cooper, B., Holland, P., and De Cieri, H. (2007), ‘The Relationship Between HRM
Avenues of Political Influence and Perceived Organizational Performance,’ Human Resource
Management, 46, 4, 611– 629.
Stanton, P., Young, S., Bartram, T., and Leggat, S. (2010), ‘Singing the Same Song: Translating
HRM Messages Across Management Hierarchies,’ The International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 21, 4, 567– 581.
Taylor, B. (2007), Learning for Tomorrow: Whole Person Learning, West Yorkshire: Oasis Press.
Teo, S.T.T., and Rodwell, J.J. (2007), ‘To Be Strategic in the New Public Sector, HR Must
Remember Its Operational Activities,’ Human Resource Management, 46, 2, 265– 284.
Ulrich, D. (1997), Human Resource Champions: The Next Agenda for Adding Value and Delivering
Results, Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Ulrich, D., and Brockbank, W. (2005), The HR Value Proposition, Boston, MA: Harvard Business
School Press.
Wahba, H. (2007), ‘Does the Market Value Corporate Environmental Responsibility? An Empirical
Examination,’ Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 15, 2, 89 – 99.
Walsh, J., Weber, K., and Margolis, J. (2003), ‘Social Issues and Management: Our Lost Cause,’
Journal of Management, 29, 6, 859– 881.
Wells, S. (2011), ‘HRM for Sustainability: Creating a New Paradigm,’ in Readings in HRM and
Sustainability, ed. M. Clarke, Melbourne: Tilde University Press, pp. 133– 146.
The International Journal of Human Resource Management 1089
Wilkinson, A., Hill, M., and Gollan, P. (2001), ‘The Sustainability Debate,’ International Journal of
Operations and Production Management, 12, 12, 1492 –1502.
Wirtenberg, J., Harmon, J., Russell, W.G., and Fairfield, K.D. (2007), ‘HR’s Role in Building a
Sustainable Enterprise: Insights From Some of the World’s Best Companies,’ Human Resource
Planning, 30, 10 –20.
Wright, P.M., and McMahan, G.C. (1992), ‘Theoretical Perspectives for Strategic Human Resource
Management,’ Journal of Management, 18, 295– 320.
Wright, P.M., and Snell, S.A. (1991), ‘Toward an Integrative View of Strategic Human Resource
Management,’ Human Resource Management Review, 1, 3, 203– 225.
Zaugg, R.J., Blum, A., and Thom, N. (2001), Sustainability in Human Resource Management:
Evaluation Report, Bern: IOP-Press.
Copyright of International Journal of Human Resource Management is the property of
Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv
without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.