See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/321640525

Promoting Green HRM in Business Organisations: A Transformative Approach

Article  in  SSRN Electronic Journal · January 2017

DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.3074357

CITATION READS
1 528

1 author:

Jose Mathews
Royal University of Bhutan
38 PUBLICATIONS   51 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

organisational processes View project

ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND INSTITUTIONS BARRIERS IN SOUTH-KIVU, DR CONGO View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jose Mathews on 05 January 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Title of the Paper: Promoting Green HRM in Business Organizations: A Transformative
Approach
Author: Jose Mathews
Designation: Senior Lecturer, Gaeddu College of Business Studies, Royal University of Bhutan
Correspondence e mail id: [email protected]

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3074357

Abstract
Green HRM connotes the science and the art of practicing environmental management in
business organizations. Corporate environmental management essentially implies achieving
minimum or zero destruction of the environment in its production and service activities. The
concept of Green HRM is developed from the application of environmental management
principles in business. Green HRM is underlined by the practice of ‘greening’ the organization in
that employees take on the roles of a ‘preservationist’, ‘conservationist’ ‘non-polluter’ and
‘maker’. Researchers refer to green HRM practices in macro level variables and micro level
variables that can include practices like recruitment, training and development, performance
appraisal and the practice of individual level habits.
Transforming an organization’s HRM practices that are otherwise not green into true green HRM
is mediated by employee cognition. In the shared cognition perspective team learning and the
development of team mental models mediate the behavior implied in green HRM. This study
presents a model that explains how team learning and shared cognitions can contribute to the
development of green HRM.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3074357

 The concept of “green” and its applications are rooted in the green nature and the green
environment where the human beings inhabit and live their lives. Man cannot live longer abusing
the nature and its valuable resources. The natural principle of co-existence also involves
protecting, conserving and developing the environment and its resources. Hyper industrialization
has brought in comfortable material living which at the same time also resulted in degradation
and destruction of nature. The modern-day living has produced irreparable damage to nature and
if man is not willing to return to nature and not willing to care for the nature, the destruction of
human lives is also not too far. It is in this context that the importance of environmental
management becomes prominent in manufacturing and service organizations which are major
contributors of environmental mismanagement.
INTRODUCTION
Green HRM denotes the application of Environmental Management (EM) principles and
theories in the processes, practices and management of human resources (Renwick et al.2008;
Zoogah (2011). The emergence of green HRM is credited with the successful application of EM
principles in all the functional areas of management. Green HRM being a relatively young field
of study, certain conceptual clarifications are required.
Green process HRM (Renwick et al. 2008) implies the application of EM principles in
the different activities of HRM that starts with recruitment and goes through performance
management and appraisal, training and development, employment relations, pay and reward and
exit.
The second connotation that can go with Green HRM is derived from the application of
EM principles in the overall functioning of the organization and it can refer to the spread of
voluntary environmental programmes (VEPs) (Ziegler and Nogareda,2009). VEPs include
negotiated agreements between business and government, unilateral agreements by firms
regarding EM Systems (the most important being ISO certification) and the following of eco-
management and audit schemes (Ziegler and Nogareda, 2009). These are the macro EM practices
like waste reduction, environmental preservation, energy conservation and sustainability (Ziegler
and Nogareda, 2009).
The third connotation that differs from EM practices are EM systems, “the formal set of
procedures and policies that defines how an organization will manage its potential impacts on the

3
natural environment and on the health and welfare of the people who depend on it (Darnall et al.
cited by Zoogah, 2011).
And the fourth connotation refers to micro EM practices followed in the organization by
the personnel employed. These practices can take the form of structured or unstructured
practices. In this paper the position adopted is not with reference to certain specific areas of
HRM activity, instead the practice of EM in the employee behavior of all functional departments
and this is in relation to the position taken by Daily and Huang (2001). Accordingly EMS
commitment and policy planning, implementation, measurement and evaluation and review and
improvement (Daily and Huang, 2001) which in the operational sense refer to the practice of
green decisions and behaviors by the employees of the organization.
GREEN HRM: A GENERAL CONSIDERATION
Opatha and Arulraj (2014) attribute four meanings to ‘green’ or ‘greening’. These macro
attributes are generalizations in the context of EM and it can be applied in the organizational
context too. Preservation of the natural environment (keeping the natural environment in its
original form and protecting it from harm), conservation of the natural environment (using the
environment at the minimum level), avoidance or minimization of environmental pollution
(guarding against outcomes that will endanger the planet earth) and adding to the natural
environment (creation of a green environment).
In the organizational context and that too in the micro context it can refer to corporate
environmentalism, environmental organization management, green management, green-business
practices, green HRM, green organizations, eco-centric organizations, eco-efficient
organizations, sustainable organizations and ecological organizations.
It was in the new Millennium era that a proactive corporate response to environmental
issues emerged “that went beyond pollution preventing and the reduction of environmental
harm” (Pane Haden, et al. 2009). And in the contemporary approach there is an integration of
company goals and environmental goals (Pane Haden et al.2009). In the words of Pane Haden et
al. (2009) integration means “organizational leaders are realizing that company and
environmental goals should be one and the same. All organizations need to make environmental
issues a major concern in all of their business functions in order to actively join in the noble
effort of rescuing this planet that is in peril. While adopting environmentally conscious strategies
and practices which help the companies remain competitive in their respective markets, the

4
increased environmental concern during this era is also driven by the motive to be socially
responsible and to do what is morally right… Organizations that are trying to become green need
to integrate sustainability initiatives at both strategic and operational levels…. Additionally they
have become learning organizations with an organic structure in order to adequately and
efficiently respond to an environment that is in constant flux” (Pane Haden et al. 2009).
In this integration between organization and environment sustainable practices focus on
decreasing the dependence on (1) materials from the Earth’s crust, (2) unnatural substances (3)
activities that harm nature (4) unnecessarily large amounts of resources that do not yield an
equivalent human value (Pane Haden et al. 2009).
Anderson (2004, cited by Pane Haden et al. 2009) proposes seven step interrelated
process to make the organization a green/greener one in the sense of sustainability and
restoration. The first step focuses on the “lofty goal of zero waste” and zero degradation and
pollution of environment, the next three steps deal with the production process itself
characterized by the elimination of harmful emissions, clean energy and recycling, the fifth step
focuses on resource-efficient transportation, the sixth step ventures to be socially responsible
organization and the final stage involves “the redesign of commerce to emphasize the delivery of
value, as opposed to the delivery of end-products” (Pane Haden , et al. 2009).
The practice of environmental management is directly linked to human resources
management as the human resources constitute the life –blood of the organization. Once
organizations incorporate the environmental dimension into their dynamics, human resources
have a crucial role in stimulating the success of its integration with the environmental
management (Jabbour et al. 2008).
Accordingly green HRM may be defined as the utilization of human resources in the
process of applying innovation to achieve sustainability, waste reduction, social responsibility
and a competitive advantage via continuous learning and development and by embracing
environmental goals and strategies that are fully integrated with the goals and strategies of the
organization (Pane Haden, et al. 2009).
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK OF THE STUDY
Cognition refers to the processes of transforming reducing, elaborating, storing,
recovering and using the sensory input of information thereby the individual understands and

5
interprets the environment of physical, organizational, social, political, natural, economic and
related realms of life.
The significance of shared cognitions stem from the fact that organizational participants
interpret the situation in a similar manner, take compatible decisions leading to the intended
shared pattern of behavior (Cannon-Bowers and Salas, 2001). The cognition that is shared can
fall into four categories of task specific knowledge, task-related knowledge, knowledge of team
mates and attitudes and beliefs (Cannon-Bowers and Salas, 2001). Task-specific knowledge
enable team members to take action in a coordinated manner without the necessity of direct
communication and this knowledge can be specific procedures, sequences, actions and strategies
necessary to perform a task (Cannon-Bowers and Salas,2001).
Task-related knowledge pertains to general aspects of the task and its related processes
which mean that the knowledge can be in relation to the performance of a number of tasks. Team
members’ knowledge of each other which are also called transactive memory refers to the
knowledge of the team members’ strengths, weaknesses and tendencies to maximize
performance as it relates to an increased awareness of who wants what and who is good in an
activity and this knowledge also includes the likes and dislikes of others.
The shared attitudes and beliefs are also crucial in the enactment of tasks such that
individuals holding similar views, attitudes, convictions and opinions stay together in their
operations and there are fewer chances of teams being broken apart. This form of shared
cognitions is also referred to as social representations or shared mental representations and it
means that group members “partake in an agreement” (Swaab et al. 20007).
Team learning or what is called team cognition is critical to team performance that “the
ability to predict team performance from team cognition” suggests that development of shared
team knowledge is the key to team behavior (Cook et al. 2001). Team learning can be the process
by which the team develops new knowledge and insights which influence behaviours
(Jimmenez-Jimenez and Sanz-Valle, 2011). According to Huber (1991, cited by Jimmenez-
Jimenez and Sanz-Valle, 2011) team learning involves the four processes of knowledge
acquisition (gaining information and knowledge), knowledge distribution (sharing of information
within the firm), knowledge interpretation and assimilation and the fourth stage of generating
organizational memory (distributed and stored knowledge across organizational participants).
Additionally Tippins and Sohi (2003, cited by Jimmenez-Jimenez and Sanz-Valle, 2011) refer to

6
five stages of learning (information acquisition, information dissemination, shared interpretation,
declarative memory and procedural memory) that result in individual/team organizational
performance.
Individual cognitions or knowledge structures variously understood as categories of
cognition, mental models, cognitive schemas and scripts when shared becomes team knowledge
structures otherwise called team mental models. In other words team cognition can be further
differentiated into team/shared mental models and team decision-making. Team mental models
are the team’s cognitive representations of knowledge structures, cognitive maps and belief
structures that guide behavior (Klimoski & Muhammed, 1994). Mental models are psychological
representations of the environment with behavioural contingencies and they allow individuals to
understand phenomena, make inferences and experience events (Klimoski & Muhammed, 1994).
Team mental models facilitate team decision-making and actions. The aggregation of
individual’s knowledge structures which is more than a mere collectivity through the processes
of interpretation, constructive conflict, integration create a context for efficient team decision-
making and actions (Klimoski &Muhammed, 1994; Van den Bossche ,2011).
Though mental models are synonymously used with “knowledge” in general, a mental
model is a representation and an interpretative representation of the environment and the
expected behaviours (Klimoski & Muhammed, 1994). In their interpretative function mental
models allow individuals to understand phenomena, make inferences and experiences by proxy
(Klimoski & Muhammed, 1994).
The significance of shared mental models emerges from the fact that aggregation of
individual’s knowledge structures affects the group behavior in myriad domains of organizational
life. Shared mental models enable the members to have common expectations of the task and it
enables the team to predict the needs of the task and team, adapt to changing demands and
coordinate activity with one another (Klimoski &Muhammed, 1994)
In accordance with the theory of shared mental models and team mental models, it is
useful to differentiate four types of team mental models that have applications in the promotion
of Green HRM. Mathieu, et al. (2000) differentiate several team mental models that have varied
applications in the organizational life. Technology, equipment type of mental model is concerned
with the equipment functioning, operating procedures, system limitations and likely failures. Job/
task type of shared mental model is concerned with task procedures, task strategies,

7
environmental constraints and task component relationships. Team interaction model is
concerned with roles/ responsibilities, information sources, interaction patterns, communication
channels, role interdependencies and information flow. And team mental models are concerned
with team mates’ knowledge, team mates’ skills, team mates’ attitudes, team mates’ preferences
and team mates’ tendencies.
The ability to predict team performance from team cognition (Cooke et al. 2001) is the
basis of the development of shared/team cognitions or team mental models that directly influence
team performance or for that matter the performance of individual organizational members
consequent to shared cognitions.
Muhammed and Dumville (2001) base the development of shared cognitions in relation
to information sharing, transactive memory, group learning and cognitive consensus. Information
sharing through active face-to-face discussions or through the use of electronic devices
contributes to the development of shared cognitions or team mental models (Muhammad and
Dumville, 2001). The effectiveness of the shared information processing is contingent on a
number of factors like pooling of information, features of the actual task and anticipated tasks,
face-to-face interaction, group size, composition, norms and roles (Wittenbaum, et al. 2004).
Transactive memory exists in interpersonal relations or in the transactions that take place
in interpersonal relations and social situations. It consists of individual memory systems
combined into a shared pool whereby each member knows who knows what and channels
information into the appropriate information (Muhammad and Dumville, 2001).
Edmondson (1999) conceptualizes group learning “as an ongoing process of reflection
and action, characterized by asking questions, seeking feedback , experimenting, reflecting on
results and discussing errors or unexpected outcomes of actions…thereby individuals (and
group) acquire, share and combine knowledge.
Cognitive consensus implies the knowledge-based agreement on how issues are defined,
interpreted and conceptualized and there is high consensus when group members have similar
and no dissimilarity on issues and interpretations. However according to Muhammad and
Dumville (2001) optimal level of consensus and dissensus in framing perspectives will
contribute to better group activities and outcomes.
The formation and execution of green decisions and the enactment of behavior in a team/
organization depend on the shared cognitions of the members (Zoogh, 2011). In other words the

8
“green signatures” of green decisions and green behaviours are contingent on the development of
shared cognitions/team mental models of organizational units. Green decisions follow the
development of shared cognitions and green behaviours can be the direct or indirect outcome of
green decisions. The moot point is that enactment of green behavior follows the development of
green cognitions among the organizational participants working in teams or individual capacity.
The development of shared cognitions thus holds the key to the practice of green HRM
behaviours and green management of people.
THE DEVELOPMENT OF SHARED GREEN COGNITIONS
Fig.1 depicts the acquisition, assimilation, interpretation and development of shared
green cognitions. The individual learning follows a combination of conceptual learning and
operational learning (Bloor, 1999) wherein through observation and assimilation, development of
individual green cognitions readies the individual to action. Group learning through interactions
produce shared cognitions which lead to organizational learning. The production of green
decisions and green behaviours, however are moderated by the processes of psychological safety
and high quality relationships and green organizational culture that are supportive of green
management of people.

Psychological
Safety and High
Quality
Relationships

Environmental Individual Group

Learning- Green
Management/Green Learning
Shared Decisions/Green
Management
Green Behaviours
Information
Cognitions

Green
Organizational
Culture

Fig. 1. Development of Shared Green Cognitions and Green Behaviours

9
 The development of group cognition/shared cognition is tantamount to group actions and
interactions which become organizational action. The development of group and organizational
cognition is contingent on what is called “unbounded learning” (Murray, 2002). Unbounded
learning envisages a “new perceptual learning cycle of the relationship between cognition and
reality”. For this to happen there is the requirement of the development of a person’s knowledge
systems and belief systems (individual schema). Creation and development of new schemata or
knowledge structures can follow through the stages of concrete experience, reflective
observation, abstract conceptualization and active experimentation (Kolb, 1984, cited by Murray,
2002).
Accordingly concrete experience implies exposing the individuals towards new
experiences, reflective observation involving the ‘ability to reflect on and observe experiences
from different perspectives, abstract conceptualization involving the forming of logical theories
through the creation of concepts that integrate reflection and observation and finally active
experimentation is underlined by application theories in real life situation.
Thus the creation and the development of individual schemata follow through the
interpretative process of knowledge creation and at the group and organization level shared
cognition result in the formation of organizational schemata through the processes of collective
interpretation and collective integration. Specifically interpretation at the individual level and
interaction at the group level are the processes creating schemata. Differentiating between
interpretation and integration process, Crossan et al. (1993, cited by Murray, 2002) refer to four
types of schemata that are differentially responsible for differential organizational learning
processes and outcomes.
Accordingly low interpretation and low integration process create what is called
impoverished schema, largely indicating lower level learning processes that does not accomplish
anything significantly. Opposed to this, higher level learning processes and outcomes are ensured
in the development and maintenance of predictive schemata contingent on high interpretation
and high integration. The productive schemata become the bricks and mortars of organizational
learning and organizational effectiveness. There are two other schemata that throw the
organization into disarray, confusion, inefficiency and systematic errors in decision-making.
Group think schemata are apparently integrated in a poorly manner thereby exposing lack of

10
deliberations, exploration and serious thought. The continuous form of schemata fails to show
the characteristics of integration thereby exposing too many conflicting ideas and plans that
cannot be implemented resulting in stagnation and deadlock.
According to Mohammed and Dumville (2001) the key to the processes of team learning
and the development of shared mental models are contingent on the processes of group
interaction. The interpretation and integration that accompanies information processing results in
the development/modification of group/organizational schemata (Murray, 2002). Moreover
group interactions are further qualified with discourse patterns that contribute to the development
of shared cognitions (Van den Bossche, 2011)
Van den Bossche (2011) makes use of the concepts of construction, co-construction and
constructive conflict to explain team learning behaviours and the development of team mental
models. Along the lines suggested by Mohammed & Dumville (2001) that involves group
learning and cognitive consensus, understanding each other’s representation and accepting and
incorporating each other’s ways of seeing involve the processes of construction and co-
construction.
Construction of meaning that is the creation of cognitive frameworks of events, issues or
problems presupposes individual and shared interpretations that converge and integration of
diverging viewpoints so as to have a cognitive consensus that emerges through greater
exposition, deliberations and shared understandings. And this process of co-construction is a
“mutual process of building meaning by refining or modifying the original offer in some way…
the outcome of this process is that ‘new’ meanings, which were not previously available to the
group emerge in the collaborative work” (Van den Bossche, 2011). Finally constructive conflict/
constructive criticisms bind the meanings and understandings of the members that the arena of
understanding and mutual agreement takes on greater heights producing collaborative cognitive
frameworks for action.
Further “as organizational members share experiences and their interpretations of them,
the conceptualization and externalization of what has previously been individual tacit knowledge
occurs. This knowledge is crystallized and justified by others testing the reality and applicability
of the concepts created by the group. Exchanging ideas through shared narratives and stories
builds common understandings out of conflicting and confused data. The convergence and

11
screening of these insights determines their value for the organization and may change its vision
and structure” (Bloor, 1999).
Cognition leads to action and the type of knowledge that the individual processes
determine the nature of action which in other words means possession of green knowledge
results in green action. The processing of green knowledge of different forms and the
development of shared green cognitions takes the organization to sustainable activities where the
important point is what these possible knowledge structures/contents are?
Green knowledge contents
Based on Ramus’ (2002) approach the development of green cognitions can revolve
around (1) a written corporate environmental policy that specifies the environmental targets and
sustainable development objectives, (2) adoption of a life cycle approach to company’s products
and services that can result in the creation of an environmental index for facilities, business units
and overall corporate performance (3) creation and dissemination of sustainability reports which
incorporate aspects of social, economic and environmental performance which can be used as a
tool for increasing employee involvement in green management, increasing employee morale
and winning top management support (4) Environmental Management System that involves
integration of environmental goals, policies and responsibilities into daily job functions. ISO
14001 or the European Union’s EM and Auditing Scheme are in vogue. These can be used as
standards or models to implement EM programmes (5) Proactive companies insist upon suppliers
following a policy that minimizes impact on environment and that suppliers adhere to
environmental practices and performance. Also the companies look down the value chain to
improve the useful life and recyclability of their products and services (6)
Environmental training and education intended to build environmental capability
building, improving employee abilities to contribute to EM, acquisition of employee
environmental problem solving skills (7) Development of employee responsibility in the creation
of a healthy, safe and preserving and nourishing environment (8) Information pertaining to life
cycle analysis (assessment) wherein the company is to provide information regarding the
minimization of environmental impact across the life cycle of its processes that also specifies
how to deal with the management of waste and e-waste management (9) Involvement of
managers in bridging the gap between traditional business processes and those necessary for the
transformation into a green/sustainable enterprise (10) Fossil-fuel use reduction policy-

12
companies depending on renewable/clean energy (11) Toxic chemical use reduction policy (12)
Policy of reducing the use of unsustainable products and (13) Same environmental standards at
home and abroad.
Psychological Safety
As a widely shared belief psychological safety of a team refers to members perceiving the
team to be trustworthy that a team does not embarrass or resort to threatening behaviours and
that in safe team “people are comfortable being themselves” (Edmondson, 1999). A team that is
endowed with psychological safety encourages members to be free and expressive in their
opinions and feelings. The greater freedom practiced or safety assured tend to make the members
to be risk-taking in the interpersonal interactions.
Carmeli et al.(2009) state that “psychological safety lessens concerns about being judged
as incompetent when seeking, asking for help from people in positions of superiority”. Moreover
psychological safety facilitates learning behaviours like seeking feedback from superiors because
of the non-threatening climate that prevails in the group/organization, speaking up about
mistakes and testing work assumptions, the courage to be different and the willingness to be
proactive and to move away from the beaten track.

High quality relationships and psychological safety

Interpersonal relationships and that too high quality interpersonal relationships enable
“members to exchange more variable information and ideas which are critical to creating and
sharing solutions to problems and new ways to improve work processes and outcomes”(Carmeli,
et al. 2009).
In Carmeli et al.’s (2009) conceptualization, the capacities and subjective experiences
that mark high quality relationships are capable of explaining the relation between high quality
relationships and shared learning behaviours. The capacities of high quality relationships are
understood in relation to emotional carrying capacity, tensility and connectivity. Emotional
carrying capacity relationships are loaded with a range of emotions that the parties to the
relationship are able to display in their relationships. Moreover the opportunity for free
expressions of emotions adds to the safety beliefs.
Tensility is characteristic of high quality relationships wherein it is expressed as
flexibility and greater scope for maneuverability that enable the members to take interpersonal
risks in relationships or that enable them to bounce back from setbacks or misunderstandings.

13
 The third feature of connectivity of high quality relationships imply that “people are more
likely to feel comfortable to open themselves up to new approaches, without fearing that their
image and status will be damaged (and that) facilitates non-defensive reactions and encourage
members to be open to and speak up about new challenges” ”(Carmeli, et al. 2009). Emotional
carrying capacity, tensility and connectivity enable individuals to feel psychologically safe.
The two aspects of the subjective experiences that foster psychological safety are positive
regard and mutuality” (Carmeli, et al. 2009). Experiences of positive regard in the realms of
recognition, deep contact, respect, appreciation and dignity create feelings of positive regard
among the members. Mutuality is a way of relating that is characterized by shared relationships
and willingness to engage in extended and mutually supporting relationships. Higher levels of
self-disclosure are another component of mutuality.
Green Culture and Green Learning in Organizations
Organizational culture refers to the set of shared assumptions, patterns of thinking and
beliefs that influence the behavior of organizational participants in its internal as well as external
relations. Each organization can be differentiated by its own distinguishing culture and culture as
an evolved byproduct of organizational interaction endows an organization with superior
characteristics. In relation to green management of employees it has been found that green
organizational culture is identified to be a key variable in EMS (Jabbour, et al. 2008).
Green organizational culture is “defined as a set of assumptions, values, symbols, and
organizational artifacts that reflect either the desire or necessity of a company to operate in
an environmentally correct way” or that focuses on the environmental management principles. In
other words the shared assumptions, beliefs and patterns of thinking are greenish in nature that
conserves, nurtures, protect and sustain the environment, inflicting no harm or avoiding the
misuse or abuse of natural resources.
Based on the work of March and Oslen (1975, cited by Bloor, 1999) and Kim (cited by
Bloor, 1999), Bloom (1999) refers to the following disruptions in organizational learning which
are culturally embedded in organizations.
 role-constrained learning – role constraints or standard operating procedures
prevent effective learning and action
 audience learning – the blurred relationship between individual action and organizational
action

14
  superstitious learning – learning characterized by faulty inferences since there are many
missing links in the individual and organizational action where the role of environment is
unclear
 learning under ambiguity – the causal connections among the variables are ambiguous
are unclear wherein there is no conceptual learning
 situational learning – in this learning there is no transfer of learning which indicates that
the individual solves a problem but does not reflect on the
learning for later use. And so there is no lasting change occurring to the individual’s
mental models and the knowledge is not shared with others
 fragmented learning – the individual learning that is not shared with others
 opportunistic learning – the organization deliberately bypasses its usual way of
doing things in response to an opportunity or emergency.

However managers can influence learning by influencing cultural dynamics wherein the
creation of cross-functional teams, sharing of a world vision, reframing of events or stories
within the organization, development of self-awareness and group awareness and development of
procedures to capture and disseminate new knowledge can strengthen cultural values associated
with experimentation and learning (Bloor, 1999).

According to Jabbour, et al (2008) the integration between environmental management

and organizational culture is possible in the five steps of
 Top management’s recognition and translation into action the environmental dimension
as a key value of the company;
 Top management recognizes and shows how environmental practices can influence the
routines of a company resulting in green work
 Top management shows the importance of the environmental values and how it is related
to the various phases of EMS;
 There are systems for training, performance appraisals, employee satisfaction, employee
motivation and leadership and rewards focused on employees’ green behavior in relation
to EMS.

15
  Employees incorporate the ecological dimension as a new organizational value and there
is to be a constant attempt on the part of the management to inculcate these values across
all the functional areas.
Green decisions and green behaviours are called green signatures (Zoogah, 2011). Green
decisions are those decisions which are in keeping with the green management of people or
Environmental Management. Green behaviours constitute the behavioural patterns and sequences
of behavior intended to fulfill the policies and programmes of EM which follow from green
decisions.
CONCLUSIONS
Inculcating the EM-based green consciousness, green decisions and green behaviours are
the major challenges faced by an organization that wants to be eco-friendly or eco-centric or
green-based organizations. The traditional organizations that are not green are resistant to
adopting the green-based management or they are unwilling to implement green HRM practices.
The answer to the resistant pattern or the answer to the effective mechanisms to implement green
management is found in the strategies used to encourage the development of shared green
cognitions across the organizations.
References
Bloor, G. (1999). Organizational culture, organizational learning and total quality management: a
literature review and synthesis. Australian Health Review, 22(3), 162-179.
Cannon‐Bowers, J. A., & Salas, E. (2001). Reflections on shared cognition. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 22(2), 195-202.
Carmeli, A., Brueller, D., & Dutton, J. E. (2009). Learning behaviours in the workplace: The role
of high‐quality interpersonal relationships and psychological safety. Systems Research and
Behavioral Science, 26(1), 81-98.
Cooke, N. J., Kiekel, P. A., & Helm, E. E. (2001). Measuring team knowledge during skill
acquisition of a complex task. International Journal of Cognitive Ergonomics, 5(3), 297-315.
Daily, B. F., & Huang, S. C. (2001). Achieving sustainability through attention to human
resource factors in environmental management. International Journal Of Operations &
Production Management, 21(12), 1539-1552.
Edmondson, A.(1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350-383.

16
Jabbour, C. J. C. & Santos, F. C. A. (2008). Relationships between human resource dimensions
and environmental management in companies: proposal of a model. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 16(1), 51-58.
Jiménez-Jiménez, D., & Sanz-Valle, R. (2011). Innovation, organizational learning, and
performance. Journal of Business Research, 64(4), 408-417.
Klimoski, R., & Mohammed, S. (1994). Team mental model: Construct or metaphor?. Journal of
Management, 20(2), 403-437.
Mathieu, J. E., Heffner, T. S., Goodwin, G. F., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (2000). The
influence of shared mental models on team process and performance. Journal Of Applied
Psychology, 85(2), 273.
Mohammed, S., & Dumville, B. C. (2001). Team mental models in a team knowledge
framework: Expanding theory and measurement across disciplinary boundaries. Journal Of
Organizational Behavior, 22(2), 89-106.
Murray, P. (2002). Cycles of organisational learning: a conceptual approach. Management
Decision, 40(3), 239-247.
Opatha, H. H. D. N. P., & Arulrajah, A. A. (2014). Green human resource management:
Simplified general reflections. International Business Research, 7(8), 101.
Pane Haden, S. S., Oyler, J. D., & Humphreys, J. H. (2009). Historical, practical, and theoretical
perspectives on green management: An exploratory analysis. Management Decision, 47(7),
1041-1055.
Ramus, C. A. (2002). Encouraging innovative environmental actions: What companies and
managers must do. Journal of World Business, 37(2), 151-164.
Swaab, R., Postmes, T., Van Beest, I., & Spears, R. (2007). Shared cognition as a product of, and
precursor to, shared identity in negotiations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(2),
187-199.
Renwick, D., Redman, T., & Maguire, S. (2008). Green HRM: A review, process model, and
research agenda. University of Sheffield Management School Discussion Paper, 2008(1), 1-46.
Van den Bossche, P., Gijselaers, W., Segers, M., Woltjer, G., & Kirschner, P. (2011). Team
learning: building shared mental models. Instructional Science, 39(3), 283-301.

17
 Wittenbaum, G. M., Hollingshead, A. B., & Botero, I. C. (2004). From cooperative to motivated
information sharing in groups: Moving beyond the hidden profile paradigm. Communication
Monographs, 71(3), 286-310.
Ziegler, A., & Nogareda, J. S. (2009). Environmental management systems and technological
environmental innovations: Exploring the causal relationship. Research Policy, 38(5), 885-893.
Zoogah, D. B. (2011). The dynamics of Green HRM behaviors: A cognitive social information
processing approach. German Journal of Human Resource Management, 25(2), 117-139.

18

View publication stats