1. Introduction
The increasing global emphasis on sustainability has prompted organizations across various sectors to implement socially responsible practices that contribute to reducing ecological footprints while ensuring long-term viability and prosperity. Therefore, it is not surprising that GHRM has gradually emerged as the major way to integrate environmental features into the management of human capital. In fact, GHRM assumes the integration of human resource practices and policies with the major environmental objectives [1]. In particular, through the integration of GHRM values in HR functions such as recruitment, training, performance appraisal and employee development the organizations learn to build a sustainable culture [2]. Moreover, as research reveals, GHRM is becoming increasingly recognized as the principal driver of education, business, and industrial sustainability. Recent studies have confirmed the strong relationship between GHRM and the performance of relevant institutions in the various sectors [3]. For example, spectacle GHRM can enhance environmental performance by implementing and practicing eco-friendly behaviors and promoting efficient resource use, which helps to reduce waste. With high-performance GHRM in the field of higher education, human resource practices could both develop organizational culture and enhance the environmental awareness of its staff and students [4].
The banking sector in emerging economies such as Pakistan is a crucial element with regard to the country’s economic stability, growth, and development [5]. Being an integral part of the economy’s financial system, the banking sector in Pakistan has to support economic activities and businesses, as well as overall country progression. Therefore, the banking sector should see increased calls to adopt sustainability development in its policies [6,7]. GHRM practices could serve as a useful instrument to develop sustainability development strategies within the banking sector of Pakistan. As far as green recruitment is concerned, the potential new hires have to be examined to ensure their green mindset and skills, which will allow them to lead the environmental objectives [8]. Green training and development involve providing employees with knowledge and training in regard to environmental issues, as well as tools to assist the implementation of environmental policies in work. In addition, green performance management ensures that employees are evaluated with a view of their performance in the bank’s sustainability goals [9].
GHRM can be beneficial in terms of promoting sustainability in the banking sector [10]. However, GHRM practices should be complemented by other organizational characteristics including OR and ORL [11]. The notion of OR refers to the capacity of a particular organization to both survive in stressful conditions and thrive. From the perspective of sustainability, resilience is critical since it helps an organization effectively respond to various environmental challenges including but not limited to regulatory problems, resources scarcity, and climate change [12]. At the same time, ORL is a concept which reflects the capacity of an organization to constantly develop and improve. As has been mentioned, the situation in the global arena keeps changing at a fast pace. Thus, to keep up with these changes, organizations also need to be change-oriented and innovative [13]. ORL can help banks develop new approaches and ways to improve their environmental performance [14,15].
The goal of this study is to examine how GHRM practices affect Pakistan’s banking sector, with an emphasis on the mediating functions of OR and ORL. Organizational sustainability is greatly aided by GHRM, a collection of procedures designed to match HRM with environmental goals. Even while GHRM is important, little is known about how it relates to important organizational outcomes like OR and ORL, particularly in developing nations like Pakistan. We use institutional theory as a foundation for this study because it offers a useful perspective on how organizational behaviors and practices, including GHRM, are influenced by environmental goals, rule conventions, and external pressures. By examining how GHRM practices are influenced by institutional pressures and how they subsequently affect OR and ORL, this study offers a more comprehensive understanding of the mechanisms at play in fostering sustainable organizational practices. The investigation emphasizes the role of GHRM in Pakistan’s banking sector because financial institutions are crucial to sustainability. Banks, as stakeholders in lending processes, affect sustainable finance initiatives and corporate sustainability management. The State Bank of Pakistan has implemented changes to improve sustainable banking operations, underlining the importance of integrating these policies into companies and comprehending human resource management support systems. Global human resource management research in manufacturing and industrial sectors exceeds existing knowledge, but service-based businesses, particularly banking, require more research.
By examining the little-known aspects of resilience and ORL in GHRM, the study seeks to close a significant gap in the body of current work. Researchers will obtain a better understanding of how GHRM may be used to manage change and improve resilience in enterprises. The study will provide practitioners in the banking industry with practical advice on how to incorporate GHRM practices into their strategic frameworks, encouraging sustainability and innovation in the face of global economic problems.
2. Literature Review
The environment in which organizations function is influenced by a number of external factors, such as societal, legal, and environmental standards, according to institutional theory. These outside forces have an impact on organizational structures and procedures, encouraging businesses to embrace measures that conform to social values, such as sustainability. The institutionalization of GHRM, which improves OR, is made possible in this situation by ORL. The framework provided by institutional theory is robust for comprehending the links between the hypotheses. On the other hand, this enhances a firm’s overall GHRM implementation as eco-friendly employees are more likely to be in favor of green policies such as waste reduction and utilization among others.
Ref. [16] examined GHRM outcomes including staff’s green views, client green fulfillment, worker green behaviors, and corporate sustainable performance. A literature analysis examined how GHRM practices affected the specified outcomes. We examined the Scopus and Web of Science from 2013 to 2023 for reviews papers. Out of 21 and 42 reviews, respectively, 17 works qualified for this evaluation. The examined literature shows that G-HRM practices positively indicate green views, fulfillment, conduct, performance, and client satisfaction. The impact of G-HRM on consumer and worker fulfillment is poorly studied.
This study would achieve enhanced theoretical depth by applying a resource-ased iew and takeholder theory to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the dynamics involved. The integration of institutional theory with stakeholder and resource-based approaches will enhance research on how banking institutions adopt and implement GHRM practices, influenced by stakeholder pressures, institutional mandates, and organizational capital resources. Figure 1 exhibits the conceptual model.
2.1. Green HRM Functions, Green HRM, and Organizational Resilience
Green recruitment is not an isolated HR function but rather a key element integrated into broader GHRM practices. From the perspective of institutional theory, green recruitment aligns with the normative expectations of sustainability within the organization. By recruiting employees who are environmentally conscious, organizations can develop a workforce that is primed for green training and development. This ensures that sustainability values are institutionalized at the recruitment stage, leading to greater corporate commitment to environmental goals [17,18]. Employing people who are dedicated to sustainability helps the organization implement and expand these GHRM practices. Workers who already share the company’s sustainability objectives contribute to the institutional norms that are incorporated into the culture, making sustainability a part of routine operations [19,20].
Green training and development are intimately tied to GHRM when examined through the lens of institutional theory. This theory says that organizations are impacted by normative, coercive, and mimetic external forces to adopt sustainable practices and preserve legitimacy. Normative pressures, which stem from societal expectations and industry standards, drive businesses to provide green training for staff members in order to bring them into line with sustainability standards. Stakeholder demands and legal regulations provide coercive pressures that compel organizations to abide by environmental laws in order to maintain their legitimacy and stay out of trouble. Mimetic pressures push businesses to display their commitment to sustainability by adopting green practices, such as training, in order to emulate market leaders [21].
OR is the ability of a business to predict, plan for, react to, and adjust to both abrupt disruptions and gradual changes in order to ensure its survival and success [22]. The development of this competency requires GHRM since it enhances sustainability, adaptability, and innovativeness. Key GHRM practices such as green recruitment, training, compensation, and employee engagement can help build the company’s resilience by developing a culture of sustainability within the organization [11]. Green recruitment focuses on recruiting job candidates who are not only qualified for open positions but also support the company’s views on sustainability. Employees who believe in sustainability are more likely to be adaptable and innovative, which are essential for organizational resilience [23].
Another beneficial feature of linking employee compensation to sustainability performance is that it tends to initiate proactive adoption and promotion of sustainable practices by the company’s staff [24]. In the article by [25], an argument is made that green compensation strategies have a positive effect on employee-perceived commitment. As a result, a company’s staff will be more committed to the idea of sustainability, which makes the company more robust and hence more likely to sustain any crisis or change that comes its way. Additionally, when compensation is linked to sustainability performance, every employee will have to contribute to the company’s sustainability goals in some way, for example, by encouraging people to participate in green teams or to make decisions related to environmental policies.
As reported by [25], employee green involvement increases organizational flexibility and, therefore, makes the company more robust. Finally, GHRM helps to foster ORL. It is stated that companies tend to develop proactive responses when they learn that their actions have significant effects on the environment [26]. In this regard employee green involvement in the institution allows the organization to be more innovative and respond to the environmental threats by adapting and developing less harmful products or more efficient methods. When GHRM practices are incorporated into the company’s strategy, sustainability becomes a part of the organizational culture and the company’s way of doing business. IKEA, a global company once criticized for greenwashing, integrated sustainability into its strategy and maintained 3–5% annual growth despite the 2009 furniture industry crisis [27]. The mentioned employee green involvement is particularly important given that in our era of increased environmental consciousness, the strongest organizations are not the ones that have the strongest immune system but rather the ones that know how to adapt to the changing environment and challenges thrown their way. Green compensation management operates autonomously from green performance appraisal, yet it maintains a connection to the practices of GHRM. Green compensation management encompasses both financial and non-financial rewards that organizations provide for employees for their participation in sustainable initiatives. An organization could offers bonuses and salary increases alongside recognition programs and supplementary rewards that encourage employees to engage responsibly with environmental and sustainability practices [8]. Green performance appraisal evaluates staff members by their capacity to follow environmental policies and sustainability metrics. The evaluation of employees involves analyzing their work performance regarding waste reduction, energy conservation, and the implementation of environmental programs within their job responsibilities. The study differentiates between evaluative and monetary practices, illustrating how organizations can foster sustainable employee behavior through various forms of motivation [17].
When analyzed through the lens of institutional theory—which highlights how organizations are influenced by external norms, expectations, and pressures—green performance appraisal and GHRM have a positive relationship. These factors encourage businesses to embrace sustainable practices, like green performance reviews, in order to stay legitimate and conform to social norms [11]. In this situation, industry norms and societal demands for sustainability create normative pressures. By including environmental standards in performance reviews, companies demonstrate their adherence to these standards and motivate staff to match their actions with environmental objectives. Regulations and legal requirements, which demand that businesses follow environmental laws, are the source of coercive pressures. By assessing staff members’ contributions to sustainability, green performance reviews serve to assure compliance, bolster the organization’s credibility, and prevent fines. In order to stay competitive, firms are under pressure to imitate industry leaders. In order to preserve their reputation and show their dedication to sustainability, other businesses imitate the use of green performance evaluations by leading corporations. As a result, GHRM-aligned green performance appraisal acts as a strategic reaction to these institutional pressures, assisting firms in maintaining their legitimacy, competitiveness, and compliance with regulators and society.
Green recruitment has a significant effect on GHRM.
Green training and development has a significant effect on GHRM.
Green compensation management has a significant effect on GHRM.
Green performance appraisal has a significant effect on GHRM.
Green involvement has a significant effect on GHRM.
2.2. Green HRM and Organizational Resilience
GHRM contributes significantly to the improvement of organizational resilience through a number of important ways. Promoting adaptable and sustainable practices is one of the main ways GHRM helps people become more resilient. Employees are prepared to prioritize sustainability in their responsibilities by GHRM, which cultivates an innovative and eco-friendly culture [28]. By emphasizing sustainability, employees are more equipped to handle environmental issues and shifts in the market, which eventually enhances the organization’s capacity to adapt and prosper in changing circumstances. GHRM also increases dedication and involvement among employees. GHRM gives workers a feeling of purpose and engagement by coordinating company objectives with their environmental beliefs [18]. Employees that are more engaged are more resourceful and committed, particularly in times of crisis or uncertainty. Employee engagement increases the likelihood that they will assist with organizational recovery and help to keep things stable during trying times [29]. The focus that GHRM places on risk management and long-term sustainability is another crucial feature. Businesses can better predict risks and lessen vulnerabilities by incorporating environmental factors into business choices. Organizations can sustain operations even in challenging circumstances by taking a proactive approach to sustainability, which helps them build a robust structure that can better manage future obstacles [30]. Customers, regulators, and investors are just a few of the stakeholders that GHRM helps cultivate a good reputation and trust with. Companies are more likely to win over these important stakeholders if they show dedication to sustainability through their HR procedures [31]. Because it gives the company a greater defense against outside influences, this trust becomes especially vital in trying times. Finally, by encouraging a proactive, flexible, and involved staff, GHRM positions businesses to become more resilient to environmental and economic challenges [32].
GHRM has a significant effect on organizational resilience.
2.3. Organizational Resilience and Sustainability
Sustainability and OR are closely related, and both have a major impact on a business’s long-term success [33]. The ability of a business to adjust, bounce back, and expand in the face of hardship, like supply chain interruptions, environmental catastrophes, or economic shocks, is known as resilience. Contrarily, sustainability shows a business’s dedication to striking a balance between its social, economic, and environmental obligations [34]. Because they can continue to operate and work toward long-term sustainability objectives even during emergencies, resilient organizations are naturally better positioned to produce sustainable results [35]. A key component of sustainability is resilience, which helps businesses to endure and bounce back from setbacks so that their social, environmental, and economic endeavors are not derailed by unanticipated circumstances [36]. Additionally, proactive adaptation is encouraged by resilience, which enables businesses to foresee hazards and coordinate their operations with sustainable practices. In order to gain a competitive edge, this entails making investments in renewable resources, developing sustainable supply chains, and implementing socially conscious business practices [37].
Resilience’s emphasis on strategic adaptability and resource efficiency, two factors essential to sustainability, is another important component [38]. Even in the face of adversity, resilient firms are skilled at limiting environmental impacts, cutting waste, and effectively managing resources [39]. Organizations can adjust to change with this strategic flexibility without sacrificing their sustainability goals. Additionally, resilient firms incorporate adaptive techniques and risk management into their decision-making procedures, shielding sustainability programs from market instability or outside pressures [40]. Long-term viability is the shared objective of sustainability and resilience. In addition to helping companies deal with complexity and unpredictability, sustainable practices like encouraging ethical governance, investing in social capital, and minimizing environmental effects also improve resilience by fortifying stakeholder connections and enhancing adaptation. When these two ideas are combined, companies are more likely to not just survive disturbances but also prosper over the long run [41]. OR is necessary to promote and improve sustainability. Companies may achieve their sustainability objectives and prosper in an uncertain business climate by cultivating adaptability, resource efficiency, and proactive risk management. In order for firms to stay competitive and future-proof, resilience and sustainability are both essential [42].
OR has a significant effect on organizational sustainability.
2.4. Moderating Effect of ORL on Green HRM and Organizational Resilience
In order to assist businesses in creating proactive solutions to environmental issues, GHRM also promotes ORL. Organizations embrace more creative and less damaging techniques when they become aware of the substantial environmental effects of their operations. Organizations must innovate to preserve their legitimacy and satisfy societal and regulatory needs, according to institutional theory, which describes this as a reaction to both normative and coercive constraints. Businesses like IKEA, for instance, which were previously condemned for only advocating for sustainability, integrated green practices into their strategy framework, enabling them to prosper in spite of market downturns. This change shows how institutions push businesses to be creative and create robust solutions to environmental problems [8,21].
By promoting flexibility, employee involvement, and creativity, essential skills that institutional theory defines as being required to meet environmental expectations, GHRM considerably enhances organizational resilience [11]. The adoption of sustainability-related values and behaviors within an organization enhances its resilience to environmental disruptions. In an era where environmental concerns are central to organizational transformation, GHRM must be viewed not only as a responsible practice but also as an institutional necessity for sustainable development. Institutional theory highlights that organizations, particularly in environments marked by rapid change, must adopt practices that are deemed legitimate by key stakeholders. Therefore, GHRM practices become instrumental for organizations seeking to maintain legitimacy and resilience in the face of environmental challenges [15].
The effectiveness of moderating the relationship between GHRM and OR by the ORL amplifies the power of green practices’ influence on various types of an organization’s adaptation, recovery, and thriving in adverse ecology-related conditions [43]. In particular, owing to the learning component of green HRM, the effectiveness of its initiatives is ensured; i.e., not only are the environmentally friendly practices embraced across the organization but also embedded deeply in the entities’ day-to-day performance [44]. It, in turn, results in higher overall resilience, as the organization is likely to develop a culture of proactivity, constant self-improvement and progress, and innovations. The first factor that leads to the above effect is an accelerated process of learning by employees, which GHRM supports by its focus on raising consciousness about environmental problems and green behaviors amongst staff members [45]. This results in the creation of an environment that is supportive of continuous development due to the growing volume, diversity, and quality of knowledge, skills, and competencies in the green realm being delivered to employees in the form of various training programs, workshops, etc. These events contribute not only to the acquisition and development of new environmentally friendly skills among the staff members but also to the consolidation of those skills when they are learned sufficiently during the enforcement crisis prevention activities [46,47]. Thus, in the case of environmental catastrophes, restrictions on GHRM-sustained green behaviors caused by changes in green legislation and other undesirable ecological contingencies, an organization exhibits both higher levels of resistance and adaptability to the issues mentioned. Given the GHRM-popularized approach of sharing experience, advice, and innovations by employees from various departments participating in ORL and problem-solving collective efforts, the above effect is proportionally amplified by cross-functional learning [48].
In addition, ORL helps the adoption of green within the company’s culture. When a culture of continuous learning is in place, GHRM is not a standalone liberal measure, but a part of the organization’s identity. Employees are more likely to see green initiatives as valuable in themself, and as this green mindset becomes dominant in organizational daily operations, the company becomes proactive at implementing green solutions and strategies [47]. As a result, the organization is more resilient, as it can handle better long-term environmental challenges, such as declining resource availability, or increasingly harsh environmental regulation. To add on, ORL stimulates continuous improvement and innovation, thus, helping the company stay ahead in the sustainability domain and, therefore, become more resilient. Learning organizations make a point of actively identifying areas in which process, products, and strategies can be improved, for example, through feedback loops or experiments [49]. When applied to GHRM, this means that employees are given the opportunity to try different approaches to their job and see which works best. It also means that they are given the opportunity to be innovative in tackling sustainability challenges, and to improve past green initiatives [43]. Therefore, the company, through continuous learning, remains ahead of impending environmental challenges, and is, thus, more resilient, as it is less likely to follow the same catastrophic track as other companies.
To sum up, ORL moderates the association between GHRM and OR by increasing adaptability, green competencies, innovation, and sustainability embeddedness. Thus, it is the mechanism that makes a significant impact and ensures the long-term survival of the organization [44]. As staff are continuously in the process of learning something new and sharing the knowledge with other employees, the practices of GHRM become more and more effective. The organization is not just able to survive business turbulence and the severe competition on the market but can develop in a sustainable manner. Overall, the operations of the organization provided above make sure that both mechanisms are involved and play a vital role in ensuring a company’s long-term success.
ORL significantly influences the relationship between GHRM and OR.
2.5. The Moderating Effect of ORL on the Relationship of Organizational Resilience and Organizational Sustainability
ORL represents a key moderating variable that improves the relationship between OR and sustainability [50]. ORL provides businesses with a platform necessary for gaining knowledge, skills, and adaptability to fuse the concepts of resilience and sustainability [51]. A factor that can advance the link between OR and sustainability is ORL. Its role is essential in the process since it helps an organization to adapt, thus, becoming resilient [52]. Through learning, businesses gain the knowledge and expertise needed to achieve resilience and improve successfully for their long-term sustainability. ORL ensures that the adopted resilience measures not only resist separate disruptions but also exhibit resilience to them because they further the organization’s sustainability above all else [53]. Furthermore, the practice fosters collaboration between departments and sharing of knowledge, ensuring better decisions and innovative approaches. Lastly, it makes companies’ measures more sustainable, ensuring that they are in accordance with the practices that are adequate for when a crisis is not taking place. Therefore, these practices can anticipate that a possible factor that may advance the link between OR and sustainability is ORL. In fact, this element can enable an organization to be flexible, innovative, and economical while guaranteeing it is adhering to sustainable development. The implication of this factor is that policies and procedures could assist a business not only in overcoming obstacles to their operation but also ensuring that the companies continue to grow in a sustainable way and do not stagnate [54].
ORL significantly moderates the relationship between OR and Organizational Sustainability.
Recent studies on GHRM focus mainly on the direct impacts of GHRM practices on sustainability, neglecting the contributions of organizational resilience and learning. Further research is needed to explore how resilience serves as a connecting factor to enhance adaptability and improve GHRM outcomes, as well as to understand the role of organizational learning in strengthening these results. Most studies on GHRM have primarily focused on developed economies, resulting in a lack of understanding regarding its implementation in emerging markets such as Pakistan. This study addresses existing research gaps by examining the relationship between GHRM, resilience, and learning in the context of enhancing sustainability performance within Pakistan’s banking sector.
3. Methodology
The study employs quantitative research design with a cross-sectional approach to analyze data collected within a specific timeframe. The research follows a deductive method, where hypotheses are formulated based on existing theories and are then tested through statistical analysis on the collected data.
Data collection was conducted using modified questionnaires adapted from prior studies, ensuring their validity and relevance to the context of the research. The target population for this study consists of companies in the banking sector of Pakistan. The respondents were primarily individuals from executive- to director-level management. From this frame, 400 responses were successfully gathered from 127 banks (see Table 1).
A survey collected responses from 127 commercial banks, Islamic banks, and microfinance institutions, along with their various branches. This study on GHRM adoption within banking institutions encompasses multiple branches and subsidiaries, even though the official list from the State Bank of Pakistan identifies 41 scheduled banks. The methodology ensures comprehensive coverage of the sector, enhancing the capacity to generalize the research findings. The study enhances its credibility and relevance to real-world sector conditions through a detailed description of its sampling method. The survey used a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree) to gather responses, covering demographics in the first section and variables relevant to the study in the second section. The collected data were analyzed using Smart-PLS 4.0 software. Since the study utilized PLS-SEM (Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling), the normality condition was not required. The validity and reliability of the questionnaire items were evaluated through factor loadings, composite reliability, Cronbach’s alpha, and average variance extracted (AVE).
The data collection involved a web-based questionnaire survey with two main sections. The first section gathered demographic information, while the second measured nine proposed constructs in the research model [55]. Each construct was assessed using multiple items sourced from the related literature. Prior to the final data collection, the questionnaire’s validity and appropriateness were evaluated through two procedures. First, an expert academic panel of four HRM specialists assessed the measurement items, resulting in a 90.5% agreement. The panel’s suggestions to improve reliability and readability were incorporated. The revised questionnaire employed in the study is tailored to align with the banking sector context of Pakistan and the research objectives. This research diverges from prior studies focused on manufacturing sectors by adapting survey instruments for service organizations within a human resource management framework. The survey was modified to incorporate banking industry-specific terminology in the questions and to include measures for employee participation in sustainability choices. This study employs various validated scale elements to develop an enhanced assessment method for GHRM, while concurrently investigating organizational resilience and sustainability. The study outlines modifications to ensure that the survey instruments accurately assess the effects of GHRM in the context of Pakistan’s banking sector.
4. Empirical Results and Discussion
The demographic data from Pakistan’s banking sector provides insights into workforce composition and tenure (see Table 1).
In line with the recommendations made by [56], we aimed to control for common method bias (CMB) during the research design stage. To mitigate potential CMB issues, we implemented both procedural remedies and statistical tests. Following the approach of [56], we ensured that respondents’ identities and answers remained anonymous to encourage honest and unbiased responses. Additionally, we incentivized participants to provide clear and unambiguous responses and focused on crafting item content to reduce vagueness.
For statistical detection of CMB, we initially employed Harman’s single-factor approach. We conducted a principal axis factor analysis (PAF), considering preliminary factors as critical for explaining the variance [57]. The results indicated that a single root construct accounted for 34.08% of the total variance, which was well below the 50% threshold suggested by [58]. Lastly, we evaluated CMB by examining the variance inflation factor (VIF) values of the constructs (as shown in Table 2). These VIF values were below the recommended threshold of 3.3 [59], confirming that CMB was not a significant concern in our study.
Following the guidelines of previous research, several tests were conducted to assess internal consistency reliability, discriminant validity, and convergent validity [59,60]. To confirm convergent validity, item loadings on their respective theoretical constructs needed to be at least 0.708, and the average variance extracted (AVE) needed to be at least 0.5. For internal reliability, both composite reliability and Cronbach’s alpha estimates had to be at least 0.7. As shown in Table 3, all items met the loading threshold of 0.708, and each construct had an AVE of at least 0.5, with Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability values exceeding 0.7 [13,21,23]. These results confirm that the dataset possesses convergent validity and internal reliability. Additionally, Figure 2 depicts the model fitness.
Discriminant validity was assessed using two criteria. First, the Fornell and Larcker criterion was applied, which requires that the square root of the AVE for each construct be greater than its correlation with any other construct in the model [7,10]. As shown in Table 4, this condition was met, confirming discriminant validity. In a similar vein, Table 5, the HTMT value for ORS/GHRM is 0.868, which exceeds the conservative threshold of 0.85. However, as per the guidelines provided [61,62], a HTMT value below 0.90 indicates that discriminant validity has been established. These studies suggest that the 0.90 threshold is appropriate for determining whether constructs are empirically distinct. Given that the HTMT value of 0.868 is below this established threshold, discriminant validity remains intact. This adherence to the benchmark, established by several scholars, strongly confirms the presence of discriminant validity within the framework [7,10]. Moreover, a HTMT below 1.0 is indicative of successfully achieving discriminant validity [15].
The results offer key insights into the relationships among the variables studied, with all nine hypotheses (H1 to H9) accepted, confirming the proposed structural model (see Table 6 and Figure 3). GC has a strong positive effect on GHRM (β = 0.451, t = 16.87, p < 0.001), emphasizing the need for a green culture. GPA also positively influences GHRM (β = 0.059, t = 1.97, p = 0.049), while green recruitment and selection (GRS) (β = 0.114, t = 2.33, p = 0.02) and GTD (β = 0.108, t = 2.32, p = 0.02) contribute meaningfully. Employee GI further strengthens GHRM (β = 0.124, t = 3.24, p < 0.001). GHRM significantly enhances OR (β = 0.62, t = 31.72, p < 0.001), which, in turn, strongly supports sustainability (β = 0.892, t = 61, p < 0.001). Interaction effects show that ORL enhances the impact of GHRM on OR (β = 0.221, t = 13.87, p < 0.001), though excessive ORL slightly weakens the resilience–sustainability link (β = −0.039, t = 2.55, p = 0.011). Figure 3 provided a bootstrapping analysis of the model.
The R-square (R2) values (Table 7) show the proportion of variance explained by the predictors for each dependent variable. For GHRM, an R2 of 0.495 means 49.5% of its variance is explained by predictors like green compensation and recruitment, with an adjusted R2 of 0.492 indicating model stability. OR (resilience) has an R2 of 0.630, meaning 63% of its variance is explained, with minimal shrinkage (adjusted R2 = 0.628). ORS (sustainability) shows the strongest explanatory power, with an R2 of 0.840, meaning 84% of its variance is explained, confirming a strong and robust model fit [63].
4.1. Moderation Analysis
The study evaluates the moderating role of ORL on the relationships between GHRM and OR, as well as between OR and organizational sustainability. Without ORL’s moderating effect on GHRM and OR, the R-square value for OR is 0.533, indicating that 53.3% of the variance in OR is explained. With the interaction term included, the R-square increases to 0.630, showing a 10% improvement in explained variance. The positive and significant moderation effect (β = 0.211, t = 13.87, p < 0.000) suggests that higher ORL strengthens the GHRM-OR relationship, supporting H8. Similarly, the study examines ORL’s moderation on the OR–ORS relationship. The R-square for ORS initially stands at 0.835 and increases marginally to 0.840 (0.5% increase) with the interaction term. However, the significant but negative moderation effect (β = −0.039, t = 2.5, p < 0.011) indicates that higher ORL weakens the OR–ORS relationship, supporting H9 (Table 8).
The results indicate that the interaction between ORL and GHRM has a positive and significant impact on both OR (β = 0.221, p = 0.000) and ORS (β = 0.197, p = 0.000), with the 95% confidence intervals confirming the reliability of these relationships. However, the interaction between ORL and OR shows a small but negative impact on ORS (β = −0.039, p = 0.011), suggesting an inverse relationship. Although resilience and GHRM practices enhance both organizational performance and sustainability, an overemphasis on internal resilience alone may hinder long-term sustainability. All the moderated relationships are statistically significant, with p-values below 0.05, supporting the acceptance of the hypotheses. These findings highlight the importance of balancing resilience strategies with sustainable HR practices to optimize both performance and sustainability while cautioning against potential misalignment in resilience efforts that could negatively affect sustainability outcomes.
4.2. Two-Way Interaction
The chart illustrates the positive relationship between GHRM and OR across different levels of ORL in Figure 4. All three lines have a positive slope, indicating that GHRM positively influences OR regardless of the level of ORL. However, the strength of this relationship varies. When ORL is high (+1 SD, green line), the slope is steepest, meaning the positive effect of GHRM on OR is strongest. At the mean level of ORL (blue line), the relationship remains positive but moderate. In contrast, when ORL is low (−1 SD, red line), the slope is flatter, suggesting that the impact of GHRM on OR is weaker. This moderation effect shows that higher levels of ORL enhance the influence of GHRM on resilience, meaning organizations with strong learning environments benefit more from green HRM practices in building resilience, while those with lower ORL still experience positive effects but to a lesser extent.
Figure 5 shows the moderating effect of ORL on the relationship between OR and ORS. All three lines have a positive slope, indicating that OR positively influences ORS across all levels of ORL. However, the slopes differ slightly based on ORL levels. When ORL is high (+1 SD, green line), the slope is slightly steeper, suggesting that the positive effect of OR on ORS is stronger. At the mean level of ORL (blue line), the relationship remains positive and moderate. When ORL is low (−1 SD, red line), the slope is the flattest, meaning that the impact of OR on ORS is slightly weaker. These results indicate that while organizational resilience consistently contributes to sustainability, higher levels of ORL amplify this positive effect. However, the differences between the slopes are small, suggesting that the moderating effect of ORL on the OR–ORS relationship is present but relatively modest.
4.3. Discussions
The study provides evidence that GHRM components show a positive relationship; green recruitment, green training, green compensation, and green performance appraisal had a significant positive effect on GHRM. Organizations can implement GHRM in accordance with institutional theory principles to address institutional pressures, thereby enhancing their adaptability and environmental responsibility. The significant impact of green recruitment, training, compensation, performance appraisal, and employee involvement illustrates how GHRM enhances organizational resilience and sustainability. This study illustrates that OR serves as a critical determinant of resilience strategies, as resilience is essential for the long-term sustainability of operations. ORL serves as a moderating factor that strengthens the relationship between GHRM and sustainable performance, as organizations that engage in continuous learning derive greater advantages from GHRM practices. Organizations must implement GHRM practices and cultivate learning environments to enhance their resilience capability for sustainable performance. The integration of resilience and learning elements through the GHRM–sustainability connection enhances academic understanding and provides organizational guidance for HR management teams aiming to align sustainability initiatives with strategic HRM practices. Further research is required to investigate extended timeframes and specific industry contexts to improve these findings.
Results indicate that, compared to the other predictors in the model, GC was found to be the most significant predictor of GHRM as reflected by highest regression path coefficients, implying that employees’ performance can be enhanced through eco-friendly incentives. Our results are enclosed by [44,60]. The results are consistent with prior literature indicating that customized, environmentally focused incentive structures can play a significant role in aligning employees with sustainability objectives. Likewise, GPA and GTD are also responsible for GHRM but in much lower magnitude (β = 0.059, p = 0.049; β = 0.108, p = 0.02, respectively), which suggests that while these practices are necessary to GHRM, their impact may be context- or implementation-dependent on an organization level. Our results are enclosed by [8,29]. Interestingly, GI also has crucial significance, which emphasizes the need to help engage employees in sustainability efforts. Hypothesis 1 confirms a strong positive link between GHRM and OR (β = 0.62, p < 0.001), suggesting green HR practices enhance resilience by promoting adaptability amid environmental challenges. This aligns with prior studies emphasizing GHRM’s role in bolstering resilience against disruptions. Our results are enclosed by [22,24]. The strong OR–ORS relationship (β = 0.892, p < 0.001) supports the hypothesis that resilience is central to sustainability. OL as a moderator (β = 0.221, p < 0.001) further strengthens this effect, as a learning-oriented culture amplifies GHRM’s impact on resilience, enabling organizations to better translate green practices into sustainable outcomes. Our results are enclosed by [4,15].
The relationship between OR and ORS indicates negative moderation due to misalignment between learning approaches to sustainability targets and the allocation of resources among learning programs and resilience development. To optimize sustainability goals, organizations must effectively incorporate learning strategies informed by an understanding of organizational dynamics, which challenges the notion that improved learning methods inherently increase resilience. The identification of these dynamics provides organizations with essential guidance for the effective management of OR, ORS, and ORL [29,44].
5. Conclusions
Overall, this research adds to the GHRM and sustainability literature by providing empirical evidence that green HR practices and ORL culture as the mediator also promote resilience in organizations, which eventually leads to sustainability. Hence, these insights offer a call to action for organizations towards a more comprehensive learning environment that highlights the importance of GHRM initiatives as central to resilience and sustainability. Furthermore, the results highlight that customized green pay and people involvement are key drivers in the execution of GHRM. Future work could investigate how long OL persists, and whether the resilience–sustainability trade-off we observe in the short run holds over a longer time frame or differs across industries. These insights have important implications for managers and policymakers wishing to achieve sustainable and resilient organizations through green HR practices and a supportive learning culture.
5.1. Theortical Implications
The analysis clarifies the major influence of core green HR practices in paving the way for embracing GHRM. By demonstrating how such practices enhance sustainable behavior in organizations and contribute to pro-environmental behaviors among individuals, its findings are consistent with past studies on GHRM and extend this literature [31,38,48,49]. The research proves that GHRM has a positive impact on OR, explaining how green HR practices give organizations the necessary tools to adapt to environmental and market uncertainties. Organizational adaptability based on sustainability-oriented HR practices extends this proposition in resilience literature. OR has a strong positive impact on ORS, thus, confirming that the organizations with high organizational resilience perform strongly in achieving sustained ecological and economic performance over time. This theoretical contribution adds to the sustainability literature incorporating resilience as a key element. It is found that ORL moderates the impact of GHRM and OR. The result also highlights the complementary nature of learning and GHRM, because GHRM positively affects resilience more strongly in organizations rich in learning capabilities. Nevertheless, ORL also negatively moderates the relationship between OR and ORS: very high levels of learning may detract from sustainability-oriented ends. This complex finding provides insights into the dual relationship between learning, adaptiveness, and sustainability. The R-square values specify that 49.5% of variance in GHRM, 63% of OR and 84% of variance in ORS, respectively, is explained by their antecedent variables, which indicates the strength of the structural model. The inclusion of ORL additionally improves variance explained in OR from 53.3% to 63%, indicating the significance of interaction effects.
5.2. Practical Implications
Organizations aiming to implement GHRM must integrate environmentally sustainable practices across their recruitment, hiring, training, performance evaluation, and reward systems. The findings illustrate the significance of employee engagement in environmental initiatives and suggest that HR managers should develop policies that actively involve staff in sustainability programs. GHRM enhances organizational resilience, rendering this management approach an essential tool for businesses amid market uncertainty.
The advantages of GHRM development within organizations are amplified by robust learning capabilities, as ongoing learning fosters organizational resilience. Enhancing learning strategies within organizations may diminish the sustainability advantages derived from resilient practices. Managers must achieve a balanced approach in their learning strategies, integrating rapid organizational adaptation with objectives that promote sustainable development. Organizations aiming for optimal GHRM outcomes should create platforms for mutual learning, facilitated by training sessions that enhance both resilience and sustainability capabilities. Research indicates that resilient organizations must integrate risk management with scenario planning and agile leadership, particularly in dynamic industries. The transition necessitates that policymakers develop frameworks that support green human resource practices, while HR practitioners must formulate models that link GHRM with sustainability and resilience objectives. Organizations that integrate their human resource practices with resilience development and ongoing education will attain superior outcomes in volatile business environments.
5.3. Limitations and Future Directions
The study presents significant findings regarding GHRM in relation to OR and ORS; however, it also reveals several limitations. The research is limited in its general applicability due to its focus on a single sector. Research should investigate the various sectors functioning within diverse ethnic backgrounds and regulatory frameworks, as these factors influence the implementation of GHRM strategies.
The authors should be cautious in making cause-and-effect assertions based on the cross-sectional research design of this study. A longitudinal research approach is necessary to examine the progression of resilience and sustainability as organizations implement GHRM initiatives over time and adapt their GHRM strategies. The investigation of ORL roles in the study makes a linear assumption about its moderating effects. Future research should investigate the presence of non-linear relationships that could indicate potential declines in sustainability and resilience as organizations acquire excessive knowledge. The research can also be expanded into other industries, such as manufacturing, marketing, the recruitment industry, and HVAC in other countries like Saudi Arabia, Turkiye, Germany, USA, Australia, France, and Canada.
This examination excludes the analysis of external stakeholder involvement from suppliers and regulators. Adopting an approach that considers multiple interest groups would enhance the study by revealing external factors influencing GHRM performance. This study does not address leadership styles, organizational culture, or digital transformation, despite their significant influence on the effects of GHRM on organizational resilience and sustainability. Future research must prioritize the examination of interactions between organizational factors, as this will enhance the theoretical connection between GHRM and organizational resilience and sustainability.
Conceptualization, T.G. and A.G.K.; methodology, A.R.; software, A.R.; validation, A.G.K.; formal analysis, T.G.; investigation, T.G.; resources, T.G.; data curation, T.G.; writing—original draft preparation, A.G.K.; writing—review and editing, A.R.; visualization, A.G.K.; supervision, T.G.; project administration, A.R.; funding acquisition, T.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Not applicable.
The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Footnotes
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Descriptive statistics.
| Item | Characteristics | Frequency | Percentage (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Male | 252 | 63 |
| Female | 148 | 37 | |
| Age | 21–30 | 150 | 38 |
| 31–40 | 115 | 29 | |
| 41–50 | 107 | 26 | |
| 51–60 | 28 | 7 | |
| Tenure | 5–10 | 56 | 14 |
| 11–15 | 178 | 44 | |
| 16–20 | 100 | 25 | |
| More than 20 | 66 | 17 | |
| Position in the company | Executive | 122 | 30 |
| Middle | 128 | 32 | |
| Lower | 150 | 38 |
Variance inflation factor.
| Collinearity Statistics | ||
|---|---|---|
| Model | Tolerance | VIF |
| (Constant) | ||
| GC | 0.566 | 1.768 |
| GHRM | 0.490 | 2.041 |
| GI | 0.571 | 1.752 |
| GPA | 0.565 | 1.771 |
| GRS | 0.531 | 1.885 |
| GTD | 0.587 | 1.705 |
| OR | 0.591 | 1.693 |
| ORL | 0.516 | 1.936 |
Dependent variable: ORS.
Reliability and convergent validity tests summary.
| Construct | α > 0.7 | Composite Reliability > 0.7 | Items | Indicators’ Reliability ≥ 0.7 | AVE > 0.5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Green Human Resource Management (GHRM) | 0.955 | 0.967 | GHRM1 | 0.898 | 0.881 |
| GHRM2 | 0.959 | ||||
| GHRM3 | 0.961 | ||||
| GHRM4 | 0.934 | ||||
| Green Compensation (GC) | 0.779 | 0.872 | GC1 | 0.851 | 0.697 |
| GC2 | 0.867 | ||||
| GC3 | 0.874 | ||||
| Green Involvement (GI) | 0.793 | 0.879 | GI1 | 0.895 | 0.708 |
| GI2 | 0.901 | ||||
| GI3 | 0.911 | ||||
| Green Performance Appraisal (GPA) | 0.906 | 0.934 | GPA1 | 0.840 | 0.779 |
| GAP2 | 0.863 | ||||
| GPA3 | 0.892 | ||||
| GPA4 | 0.822 | ||||
| Green Training and Development (GTD) | 0.910 | 0.933 | GTD1 | 0.849 | 0.735 |
| GTD2 | 0.883 | ||||
| GTD3 | 0.865 | ||||
| GTD4 | 0.881 | ||||
| GTD5 | 0.807 | ||||
| Green Recruitment and Selection (GRS) | 0.886 | 0.917 | GRS1 | 0.817 | 0.687 |
| GRS2 | 0.861 | ||||
| GRS3 | 0.879 | ||||
| GRS4 | 0.787 | ||||
| GRS5 | 0.798 | ||||
| Organizational Resilience (OR) | 0.964 | 0.974 | OR1 | 0.970 | 0.902 |
| OR2 | 0.933 | ||||
| OR3 | 0.923 | ||||
| OR4 | 0.973 | ||||
| Organizational Learning (ORL) | 0.784 | 0.854 | ORL1 | 0.710 | 0.596 |
| ORL2 | 0.810 | ||||
| ORL3 | 0.854 | ||||
| ORL4 | 0.703 | ||||
| Organizational Sustainability (ORS) | 0.922 | 0.946 | ORS1 | 0.745 | 0.816 |
| ORS2 | 0.937 | ||||
| ORS3 | 0.959 | ||||
| ORS4 | 0.954 |
Outcomes of Fornell–Larcker criterion.
| Construct | GC | GHRM | GI | GPA | GRS | GTD | OR | ORL | ORS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GC | 0.835 | ||||||||
| GHRM | 0.643 | 0.938 | |||||||
| GI | 0.476 | 0.514 | 0.841 | ||||||
| GPA | 0.337 | 0.374 | 0.517 | 0.883 | |||||
| GRS | 0.517 | 0.543 | 0.652 | 0.435 | 0.829 | ||||
| GTD | 0.498 | 0.534 | 0.649 | 0.458 | 0.826 | 0.857 | |||
| OR | 0.694 | 0.730 | 0.436 | 0.278 | 0.485 | 0.469 | 0.950 | ||
| ORL | 0.491 | 0.483 | 0.472 | 0.371 | 0.413 | 0.424 | 0.517 | 0.772 | |
| ORS | 0.710 | 0.798 | 0.504 | 0.346 | 0.540 | 0.520 | 0.714 | 0.529 | 0.903 |
Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio (HTMT).
| Construct | GC | GHRM | GI | GPA | GRS | GTD | OR | ORL | ORS | ORL × GHRM | ORL × OR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GC | |||||||||||
| GHRM | 0.734 | ||||||||||
| GI | 0.590 | 0.591 | |||||||||
| GPA | 0.383 | 0.396 | 0.606 | ||||||||
| GRS | 0.606 | 0.588 | 0.778 | 0.483 | |||||||
| GTD | 0.571 | 0.568 | 0.764 | 0.502 | 0.917 | ||||||
| OR | 0.800 | 0.760 | 0.497 | 0.294 | 0.521 | 0.494 | |||||
| ORL | 0.591 | 0.524 | 0.604 | 0.455 | 0.482 | 0.491 | 0.551 | ||||
| ORS | 0.839 | 0.868 | 0.601 | 0.395 | 0.608 | 0.576 | 0.957 | 0.584 | |||
| ORL × GHRM | 0.113 | 0.146 | 0.228 | 0.247 | 0.155 | 0.149 | 0.076 | 0.376 | 0.096 | ||
| ORL × OR | 0.132 | 0.093 | 0.068 | 0.112 | 0.043 | 0.046 | 0.269 | 0.186 | 0.182 | 0.776 |
Summary of structural model path coefficients.
| Hyp. | Path | Path Coefficient (β) | Confidence Interval 95% Bias Corrected | T Values | p Values | Remarks | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower Limit | Upper Limit | ||||||
| H1 | GC > GHRM | 0.451 | 0.39 | 0.50 | 16.87 | 0.000 | Supported |
| H2 | GPA > GHRM | 0.059 | 0.00 | 0.11 | 1.97 | 0.049 | Supported |
| H3 | GRS > GHRM | 0.114 | 0.02 | 0.21 | 2.33 | 0.020 | Supported |
| H4 | GTD > GHRM | 0.108 | 0.01 | 0.19 | 2.32 | 0.020 | Supported |
| H5 | GI > GHRM | 0.124 | 0.05 | 0.20 | 3.24 | 0.000 | Supported |
| H6 | GHRM > OR | 0.620 | 0.58 | 0.67 | 31.72 | 0.000 | Supported |
| H7 | OR > ORS | 0.892 | 0.86 | 0.92 | 61.00 | 0.000 | Supported |
| H8 | ORL × GHRM -> OR | 0.221 | 0.19 | 0.25 | 13.87 | 0.000 | Supported |
| H9 | ORL × OR -> ORS | −0.039 | −0.06 | −0.01 | 2.55 | 0.011 | Supported |
R-squared value.
| Construct | R-Square | R-Square Adjusted |
|---|---|---|
| GHRM | 0.495 | 0.492 |
| OR | 0.630 | 0.628 |
| ORS | 0.840 | 0.840 |
Hypothesized moderated relationship.
| Beta | Standard Deviation | p Value | 95% Confidence Interval | Decision | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ORL × GHRM -> OR | 0.221 | 0.016 | 0.000 | 0.191 | 0.254 | Accepted |
| ORL × GHRM -> ORS | 0.197 | 0.015 | 0.000 | 0.170 | 0.228 | Accepted |
| ORL × OR -> ORS | −0.039 | 0.015 | 0.011 | −0.069 | −0.009 | Accepted |
References
1. Gilal, F.G.; Ashraf, Z.; Gilal, N.G.; Gilal, R.G.; Channa, N.A. Promoting environmental performance through green human resource management practices in higher education institutions: A moderated mediation model. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag.; 2019; 26, pp. 1579-1590. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/csr.1835]
2. Abdelwahed, N.A.A.; Soomro, B.A.; Shah, N. The Role of Environment, Business and Human Behavior towards Entrepreneurial Sustainability. Sustainability; 2022; 14, 2517. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su14052517]
3. Mishra, P. Green human resource management. Int. J. Organ. Anal.; 2017; 25, pp. 762-788. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-11-2016-1079]
4. Meidute-Kavaliauskiene, I.; Çiğdem, Ş.; Vasilis Vasiliauskas, A.; Yıldız, B. Green Innovation in Environmental Complexity: The Implication of Open Innovation. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex.; 2021; 7, 107. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/joitmc7020107]
5. Shahzad, M.; Qu, Y.; Zafar, A.U.; Rehman, S.U.; Islam, T. Exploring the influence of knowledge management process on corporate sustainable performance through green innovation. J. Knowl. Manag.; 2020; 24, pp. 2079-2106. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JKM-11-2019-0624]
6. Hameed, Z.; Khan, I.U.; Islam, T.; Sheikh, Z.; Naeem, R.M. Do green HRM practices influence employees’ environmental performance?. Int. J. Manpow.; 2020; 41, pp. 1061-1079. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJM-08-2019-0407]
7. Kement, Ü.; Zeybek, B.; Soylu, S.; Erkol Bayram, G.; Raza, A. The effect of transformational leadership on restaurant employees on trust, altruistic intention and organizational commitment: The moderation effect of surface acting. Eur. Bus. Rev.; 2024; 36, pp. 613-638. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/EBR-05-2023-0169]
8. Raza, A.; Shaikh, E.; Tursoy, T.; Almashaqbeh, H.A. Economics and business perspectives of sustainable HRM. Sustainable Development of Human Resources in a Globalization Period; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2022; pp. 36-48.
9. Moroojo, A.W.; Raza, A.; Na, H.; Al Almashaqbeh, H. Sustainability Business Strategies: Contributing to Business Success Through Resilience-Sustainable Efforts. Strategies and Approaches of Corporate Social Responsibility Toward Multinational Enterprises; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2024; pp. 263-296.
10. Holt, D.; Anthony, S. Exploring ‘green’ culture in Nortel and Middlesex University. Eco-Manag. Audit.; 2000; 7, pp. 143-154. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/1099-0925(200009)7:3<143::AID-EMA132>3.0.CO;2-B]
11. Ouragini, I.; Ben Achour, I.; Lakhal, L. The effect of lean, agile, resilient and sustainable (LARS) HRM on the environmental performance: The mediating role of green innovation. Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag.; 2024; ahead-of-print [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJQRM-05-2023-0176]
12. Song, W.; Yu, H.; Xu, H. Effects of green human resource management and managerial environmental concern on green innovation. Eur. J. Innov. Manag.; 2021; 24, pp. 951-967. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-11-2019-0315]
13. Soomro, B.A.; Mangi, S.; Shah, N. Strategic factors and significance of organizational innovation and organizational learning in organizational performance. Eur. J. Innov. Manag.; 2021; 24, pp. 481-506. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-05-2019-0114]
14. Cegarra-Navarro, J.G.; Jiménez-Jiménez, D.; García-Pérez, A. An Integrative View of Knowledge Processes and a Learning Culture for Ambidexterity: Toward Improved Organizational Performance in the Banking Sector. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag.; 2021; 68, pp. 408-417. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2019.2917430]
15. Kement, Ü.; Zeybek, B.; Eter, E.; Bayram, G.E.; Raza, A.; Valeri, M. How does the green entrepreneurship process of students undergoing tourism education proceed? Implementation of the policy acceptance model. Int. J. Environ. Workplace Employ; 2023; 7, pp. 198-223. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJEWE.2023.135473]
16. AlKetbi, A.; Rice, J. The impact of green human resource management practices on employees, clients, and organizational performance: A literature review. Adm. Sci.; 2024; 14, 78. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/admsci14040078]
17. Raza, A.; Memon, A.R.; Asif, L.; Shaikh, E.; Pergen, N. CSR for Sustainable Development: Unserved Population and Under-Developed Region. Strategies and Approaches of Corporate Social Responsibility Toward Multinational Enterprises; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2024; pp. 116-140.
18. Jackson, C.J. Jackson-5 scales of revised Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory (r-RST) and their application to dysfunctional real world outcomes. J. Res. Pers.; 2009; 43, pp. 556-569. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2009.02.007]
19. Medberg, G.; Grönroos, C. Value-in-use and service quality: Do customers see a difference?. J. Serv. Theory Pract.; 2020; 30, pp. 507-529. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JSTP-09-2019-0207]
20. Suomala, P.; Lyly-Yrjänäinen, J.; Lukka, K. Battlefield around interventions: A reflective analysis of conducting interventionist research in management accounting. Manag. Account. Res.; 2014; 25, pp. 304-314. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2014.05.001]
21. Raza, A.; Shaikh AU, H.; Tursoy, T.; Almashaqbeh, H.A.; Alkhateeb, S.M. Empirical analysis of Financial Risk on Bank’s Financial Perfor-mance: An Evidence from Turkish Banking Industry. ILMA J. Soc. Sci. Econ. (IJSSE); 2022; 3, pp. 16-38.
22. Dessouky, N.F.E.; Alquaiti, H.O. Impact of Green Human Resource Management (GHRM) Practices on Organizational Performance. Proceedings of the 2020 Second International Sustainability and Resilience Conference: Technology and Innovation in Building Designs(51154); Sakheer, Bahrain, 11–12 November 2020.
23. Delıoğlu, N.; Uysal, B. A review on agile leadership and digital transformation. Yildiz Soc. Sci. Rev.; 2022; 8, pp. 121-128.
24. Siyambalapitiya, J.; Zhang, X.; Liu, X. Green human resource management: A proposed model in the context of Sri Lanka’s tourism industry. J. Clean. Prod.; 2018; 201, pp. 542-555. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.305]
25. Jabbour, C.J.C.; de Sousa Jabbour, A.B.L. Green Human Resource Management and Green Supply Chain Management: Linking two emerging agendas. J. Clean. Prod.; 2016; 112, pp. 1824-1833. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.01.052]
26. Freitas, W.R.d.S.; Caldeira-Oliveira, J.H.; Teixeira, A.A.; Stefanelli, N.O.; Teixeira, T.B. Green human resource management and corporate social responsibility. Benchmarking Int. J.; 2020; 27, pp. 1551-1569. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-12-2019-0543]
27. Iannuzzi, A. Greener Products: The Making and Marketing of Sustainable Brands; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2024.
28. Plambeck, E.L.; Denend, L. The Greening of Wal-Mart. Stanf. Soc. Innov. Rev.; 2008; 6, pp. 52-59. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.48558/ZV0B-F456]
29. Amjad, F.; Rao, Y.; Rahman, A.U.; Mohsin, M.; Sarfraz, M. Fostering sustainability through the Green HRM and green inclusive leadership: The dual mediating role of creative self-efficacy and green skill competency. Curr. Psychol.; 2024; 43, pp. 22181-22199. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12144-024-06027-z]
30. Ali, M.; Shujahat, M.; Fatima, N.; Lopes de Sousa Jabbour, A.B.; Vo-Thanh, T.; Salam, M.A.; Latan, H. Green HRM practices and corporate sustainability performance. Manag. Decis.; 2024; ahead-of-print [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/MD-05-2023-0787]
31. Aggarwal, P.; Agarwala, T. Relationship of green human resource management with environmental performance: Mediating effect of green organizational culture. Benchmarking Int. J.; 2023; 30, pp. 2351-2376. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-08-2021-0474]
32. Alipour, N.; Nazari-Shirkouhi, S.; Sangari, M.S.; Vandchali, H.R. Lean, agile, resilient, and green human resource management: The impact on organizational innovation and organizational performance. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.; 2022; 29, pp. 82812-82826. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-21576-1] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35761135]
33. Välikangas, L. Leadership that Generates Resilience: An Introduction to Second Resilience Forum. Manag. Organ. Rev.; 2020; 16, pp. 737-739. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/mor.2020.52]
34. Vakilzadeh, K.; Haase, A. The building blocks of organizational resilience: A review of the empirical literature. Contin. Resil. Rev.; 2021; 3, pp. 1-21. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/CRR-04-2020-0002]
35. Duchek, S. Growth in the Face of Crisis: The Role of Organizational Resilience Capabilities. Acad. Manag. Proc.; 2014; 2014, 13487. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.2014.225]
36. Hillmann, J. Disciplines of organizational resilience: Contributions, critiques, and future research avenues. Rev. Manag. Sci.; 2021; 15, pp. 879-936. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11846-020-00384-2]
37. Raetze, S.; Duchek, S.; Maynard, M.T.; Wohlgemuth, M. Resilience in organization-related research: An integrative conceptual review across disciplines and levels of analysis. J. Appl. Psychol.; 2022; 107, pp. 867-897. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/apl0000952]
38. Ortiz-de-Mandojana, N.; Bansal, P. The long-term benefits of organizational resilience through sustainable business practices. Strateg. Manag. J.; 2016; 37, pp. 1615-1631. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/smj.2410]
39. Ciasullo, M.V.; Chiarini, A.; Palumbo, R. Mastering the interplay of organizational resilience and sustainability: Insights from a hybrid literature review. Bus. Strategy Environ.; 2024; 33, pp. 1418-1446. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bse.3530]
40. Rai, S.S.; Rai, S.; Singh, N.K. Organizational resilience and social-economic sustainability: COVID-19 perspective. Environ. Dev. Sustain.; 2021; 23, pp. 12006-12023. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-01154-6] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33519297]
41. Wu, Y.; Tham, J. The impact of environmental regulation, Environment, Social and Government Performance, and technological innovation on enterprise resilience under a green recovery. Heliyon; 2023; 9, e20278. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e20278]
42. Osei, M.B.; Papadopoulos, T.; Acquaye, A.; Stamati, T. Improving sustainable supply chain performance through organisational culture: A competing values framework approach. J. Purch. Supply Manag.; 2023; 29, 100821. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pursup.2023.100821]
43. Liu, Z.; Mei, S.; Guo, Y. Green human resource management, green organization identity and organizational citizenship behavior for the environment: The moderating effect of environmental values. Chin. Manag. Stud.; 2021; 15, pp. 290-304. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/CMS-10-2019-0366]
44. Chowdhury, S.R.; Mendy, J.; Rahman, M. A Systematic Literature Review of GHRM: Organizational Sustainable Performance Reimagined Using a New Holistic Framework. Sustainability; 2023; 15, 7513. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su15097513]
45. Amjad, F.; Abbas, W.; Zia-Ur-Rehman, M.; Baig, S.A.; Hashim, M.; Khan, A.; Rehman, H.-u. Effect of green human resource management practices on organizational sustainability: The mediating role of environmental and employee performance. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.; 2021; 28, pp. 28191-28206. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-11307-9] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33527245]
46. Jaw, B.-S.; Liu, W. Promoting organizational learning and self-renewal in Taiwanese companies: The role of HRM. Hum. Resour. Manag.; 2003; 42, pp. 223-241. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hrm.10082]
47. Mushtaq, S.; Akhtar, S. Sustainable HRM strategies, enhancing organizational resilience and advancing sustainability goals. J. Manag. Dev.; 2024; 43, pp. 712-726. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JMD-02-2024-0072]
48. Mehak, S.S.; Batcha, H.M. Analyzing the influence of green human resource practices on organizational sustainability: The role of green attitudes and performance of employees’. Environment, Development and Sustainability; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2024; pp. 1-34. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10668-024-05157-5]
49. Rehan, M.; Abbass, K.; Hussain, Y.; Usman, M.; Makhdum, M.S.A. Green human resource management in Pakistan tourism industry: Moderating role of environmental knowledge and individual green values. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol.; 2024; 21, pp. 2505-2516. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13762-023-05136-9]
50. Wang, J.; Chen, R.; Zhang, S. The Mediating and Moderating Effect of Organizational Resilience on Competitive Advantage: Evidence from Chinese Companies. Sustainability; 2022; 14, 13797. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su142113797]
51. Jiao, P.; Bu, W. The Impact of Organizational Learning on Organizational Resilience in Construction Projects. Buildings; 2024; 14, 975. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/buildings14040975]
52. Douglas, S.; Haley, G. Connecting organizational learning strategies to organizational resilience. Dev. Learn. Organ. Int. J.; 2024; 38, pp. 12-15. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/DLO-01-2023-0018]
53. Do, H.; Budhwar, P.; Shipton, H.; Nguyen, H.-D.; Nguyen, B. Building organizational resilience, innovation through resource-based management initiatives, organizational learning and environmental dynamism. J. Bus. Res.; 2022; 141, pp. 808-821. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.11.090]
54. Chen, R.; Xie, Y.; Liu, Y. Defining, Conceptualizing, and Measuring Organizational Resilience: A Multiple Case Study. Sustainability; 2021; 13, 2517. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su13052517]
55. Park, S.C.; Ryoo, S.Y. An empirical investigation of end-users’ switching toward cloud computing: A two factor theory perspective. Comput. Hum. Behav.; 2013; 29, pp. 160-170. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.07.032]
56. Ooi, K.-B.; Lee, V.-H.; Tan, G.W.-H.; Hew, T.-S.; Hew, J.-J. Cloud computing in manufacturing: The next industrial revolution in Malaysia?. Expert Syst. Appl.; 2018; 93, pp. 376-394. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2017.10.009]
57. Fuller, C.M.; Simmering, M.J.; Atinc, G.; Atinc, Y.; Babin, B.J. Common methods variance detection in business research. J. Bus. Res.; 2016; 69, pp. 3192-3198. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.12.008]
58. Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B.; Lee, J.-Y.; Podsakoff, N.P. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol.; 2003; 88, pp. 879-903. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879]
59. Kock, N. Common method bias in PLS-SEM: A full collinearity assessment approach. Int. J. E-Collab. (IJEC); 2015; 11, pp. 1-10. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4018/ijec.2015100101]
60. Thaher, Y.A.Y.; Jaaron, A.A.M. The impact of sustainability strategic planning and management on the organizational sustainable performance: A developing-country perspective. J. Environ. Manag.; 2022; 305, 114381. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.114381]
61. Gold, A.H.; Malhotra, A.; Segars, A.H. Knowledge management: An organizational capabilities perspective. J. Manag. Inf. Syst.; 2001; 18, pp. 185-214. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2001.11045669]
62. Teo, T.S.; Srivastava, S.C.; Jiang, L.I. Trust and electronic government success: An empirical study. J. Manag. Inf. Syst.; 2008; 25, pp. 99-132. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222250303]
63. Mooi, E. A Concise Guide to Market Research: The Process, Data, and Methods Using IBM SPSS Statistics; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2011.
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Details
; Karaatmaca, Ayse Gozde 2 ; Raza, Ali 3
1 Department of Business Administration, Faculty of Social Sciences, Near East University, Nicosia (via Mersin 10, Turkey) 99138, Cyprus
2 Department of International Business, Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Near East University, Nicosia (via Mersin 10, Turkey) 99138, Cyprus;
3 SK—Research, Oxford Business College, Oxford OX3 9BZ, UK