# The Role of Green Human Resource Management in the Translation of Greening Pressures into Environmental Protection Practices

D. Vázquez-Brust, C.J.C. Jabbour, J.A. Plaza-Úbeda, M. Perez-Valls, Ana

Beatriz. Lopes de Sousa Jabbour, D.W.S. Renwick

► To cite this version:

D. Vázquez-Brust, C.J.C. Jabbour, J.A. Plaza-Úbeda, M. Perez-Valls, Ana Beatriz. Lopes de Sousa Jabbour, et al.. The Role of Green Human Resource Management in the Translation of Greening Pressures into Environmental Protection Practices. Business Strategy and the Environment, 2023, 32 (6), pp.3628-3648. 10.1002/bse.3319. hal-04434120

HAL Id: hal-04434120

https://normandie-univ.hal.science/hal-04434120

Submitted on 29 May 2024

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

# The role of green human resource management in the translation of greening pressures into environmental protection practices

Diego Vázquez-Brust<fnref n="1" /> ID |

Charbel Jose Chiappetta Jabbour<fnref n="2" /> ID |

José Antonio Plaza-Úbeda<fnref n="3" /> ID |

Miguel Perez-Valls<fnref n="3" /> |

Ana Beatriz Lopes de Sousa Jabbour<fnref n="4" /> ID |

Douglas W. S. Renwick<fnref n="5" />

## Correspondence

Diego Vázquez-Brust, Faculty of Business and Law, University of Portsmouth, Richmond Building, Portland Street, Portsmouth, PO1 3DE, UK.

Email: diego.vazquez-brust@port.ac.uk.

## Funding information

Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation; Agencia Nacional de Investigación-AEI; European Regional Development Fund

## Abstract

Corporate environmental sustainability requires two complementary types of green practices—environmental protection hardware (EPH) and environmental protection software (EPS). Stakeholder greening pressures drive implementation; however, corporate responses vary, often lacking the balance and intensity of EPS and EPH needed. This paper explores the role of green human resource management (GHRM) in explaining variations in the implementation of EPH and EPS in response to stakeholders' pro-environmental pressures. Drawing on stakeholder theory and the ability, motivation, and opportunity (AMO) framework, a mediating role is hypothesized. Empirical findings from Brazil using structural equation modeling reveal that increased green pressure from stakeholders drives the adoption of both types of green practices through a partial mediating role of GHRM that is stronger for EPH than for EPS. The value of this study lies in the consideration of EPH and EPS practices in the same model and expanding stakeholder theory on how stakeholders can improve environmental protection through GHRM. Implications are that organizations can level the field for the balanced application of EPS and EPH with a system of green human resource management practices—training, assessment, rewards, and teamwork—to channel the translation of stakeholder pressures into workplace green outcomes. Limitations, future research ideas, and policy and practice implications are detailed.

## KEYWORDS

AMO theory, Brazil, corporate environmental sustainability, green human resource management, stakeholder pressures

<footnote n="1">¹Faculty of Business and Law, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, UK</footnote>

<footnote n="2">²NEOMA Business School, Mont-Saint-Aignan, France</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³University of Almería, Almería, Spain</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴EM Normandie Business School, Paris, France</footnote>

<footnote n="5">⁵Nottingham Business School, Nottingham, UK</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

# The role of green human resource management in the translation of greening pressures into environmental protection practices

Diego Vázquez-Brust<fnref n="1" /> ID |

Charbel Jose Chiappetta Jabbour<fnref n="2" /> ID |

José Antonio Plaza-Úbeda<fnref n="3" /> ID |

Miguel Perez-Valls<fnref n="3" /> |

Ana Beatriz Lopes de Sousa Jabbour<fnref n="4" /> ID |

Douglas W. S. Renwick<fnref n="5" />

## Correspondence

Diego Vázquez-Brust, Faculty of Business and Law, University of Portsmouth, Richmond Building, Portland Street, Portsmouth, PO1 3DE, UK.

Email: diego.vazquez-brust@port.ac.uk.

## Funding information

Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation; Agencia Nacional de Investigación-AEI; European Regional Development Fund

## Abstract

Corporate environmental sustainability requires two complementary types of green practices—environmental protection hardware (EPH) and environmental protection software (EPS). Stakeholder greening pressures drive implementation; however, corporate responses vary, often lacking the balance and intensity of EPS and EPH needed. This paper explores the role of green human resource management (GHRM) in explaining variations in the implementation of EPH and EPS in response to stakeholders' pro-environmental pressures. Drawing on stakeholder theory and the ability, motivation, and opportunity (AMO) framework, a mediating role is hypothesized. Empirical findings from Brazil using structural equation modeling reveal that increased green pressure from stakeholders drives the adoption of both types of green practices through a partial mediating role of GHRM that is stronger for EPH than for EPS. The value of this study lies in the consideration of EPH and EPS practices in the same model and expanding stakeholder theory on how stakeholders can improve environmental protection through GHRM. Implications are that organizations can level the field for the balanced application of EPS and EPH with a system of green human resource management practices—training, assessment, rewards, and teamwork—to channel the translation of stakeholder pressures into workplace green outcomes. Limitations, future research ideas, and policy and practice implications are detailed.

## KEYWORDS

AMO theory, Brazil, corporate environmental sustainability, green human resource management, stakeholder pressures

<footnote n="1">¹Faculty of Business and Law, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, UK</footnote>

<footnote n="2">²NEOMA Business School, Mont-Saint-Aignan, France</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³University of Almería, Almería, Spain</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴EM Normandie Business School, Paris, France</footnote>

<footnote n="5">⁵Nottingham Business School, Nottingham, UK</footnote>
# 1 | INTRODUCTION

The burgeoning literature on stakeholders and corporate environmental sustainability suggests that when stakeholders are strongly pro-environmental, it is in a firm's best interest to go beyond external regulation and voluntarily allocate resources toward fully implementing corporate practices that promote environmental protection—for example, eco-design, recycling, or environmental policies (González-Benito & González-Benito, 2006, de Sousa Jabbour et al., 2020; Bhatia & Kumar, 2022; Singh et al., 2022).

The distinction proposed by Peattie and Ringer (1994) between practices that form the “hardware” of environmental protection (EPH) and practices that constitute the “software” of environmental protection (EPS) is particularly relevant to understanding how firms should respond to pro-environmental stakeholders. EPS practices are those that embed environmental concerns in decisions about corporate policy, planning, and strategies, such as supplier selection, long-term objectives, and corporate reporting. EPH practices relate to technological and functional changes and introduce green concerns into the firm's competencies, processes, and functions, such as research and development (R&D), production, and marketing (González-Benito & González-Benito, 2006; Peattie & Ringer, 1994). Although both types of EPH and EPS practices are needed in response to greening pressures, only EPH can deliver transformational change and is therefore crucial to successfully achieve firm-level environmental protection.

Contrary to the inferences drawn above, many firms respond to pro-environmental stakeholder pressures with green practice portfolios that lack the diversity and intensity of EPS and EPH implementation needed to protect the environment and satisfy stakeholder expectations (Bromley & Powell, 2012; Wijen, 2014). The causes of this lack of engagement continue to be an understudied area in environmental sustainability research (Shevchenko et al., 2016), particularly concerning emerging market economies. While the literature is increasingly recognizing that a growing field of knowledge (Chaudhary, 2020; Jackson et al., 2014), termed green human resource management (GHRM), can help in facilitating the implementation of environmental practices in response to stakeholder needs (Roscoe et al., 2019), little is known regarding the role and relevance of GHRM practices in the relationship between stakeholder pressures and the intensity of the adoption of EPS and EPH practices. Accordingly, there is a limited understanding of the extent to which GHRM practices are influential in the implementation of both types of environmental protection practices needed to satisfy stakeholders. As a consequence, it is unclear whether GHRM is equally relevant to implement EPS and EPH. Addressing these gaps in knowledge is important for the GHRM literature because there is still a need for more conceptual and theoretical refinement in GHRM (Cooke et al., 2022). In particular, GHRM scholars seek a better theoretical understanding of the processes that explain how GHRM improves environmental performance (Ren et al., 2020).

This study responds to the need for a more refined understanding of the processes linking GHRM with environmental protection. It seeks to extend further and make granular the GHRM literature by

distinguishing between its impact on environmental protection hardware and software practices.

Relevant prior works have studied mediating factors between GHRM practices and antecedents of environmental performance, such as collective organizational citizenship behaviors toward the environment (Renwick, 2020), green creativity (Hameed et al., 2021), and green job pursuit intention (Chaudhary, 2020). Kim et al. (2017) reveal indirect relationships between leader and subordinate voluntary workplace green behaviors mediated by green advocacy among work groups. In turn, a mediating role of GHRM has been found between ethical leadership and employees' green behavior (Islam et al., 2022), top management commitment and environmental performance (Haldorai et al., 2022), CEOs' green beliefs and environmental performance (Ren et al., 2020), and human capital and environmental management (Roxas et al., 2017). However, research at the intersection of stakeholder pressures and GHRM practices is very scarce, which is surprising given the importance of stakeholder pressures in pro-environmental corporate decisions (Ervin et al., 2013). Guerci et al. (2016) studied different GHRM practices mediating relationships between pressures on environmental issues (from regulators and customers) and carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions. However, there is a paucity of studies with a wider palette of stakeholders and green practices, including EPH and EPS. There is still a need to refine and extend GHRM as a mediating role between multiple aggregated stakeholder pressures and the implementation of environmental practices, as few—if any—studies on such mediators exist in the GHRM literature, meaning that relevant research could benefit from knowing more about mediators overall. This paper responds to this need and, in doing so, adds granularity and detail to extant GHRM theory and practice.

Accordingly, the research questions are as follows:

What is the role of GHRM practices in the relationship between stakeholder pressures and the intensity of the adoption of EPS and EPH practices?

To what extent are GHRM practices relevant to explaining variations in the implementation of both EPH and EPS?

Referring to the existing green human resources (GHRM) literature (e.g., Tang et al., 2018) and the ability, motivation, and opportunity theoretical framework, this paper proposes that variations in the implementation of EPS and EPH depend on the extent to which organizations provide employees with the skills, motivation, and opportunities needed to help satisfy the demands of stakeholders with the implementation of environmental practices. The need for skills, motivation, and opportunities is likely to be more pronounced when addressing stakeholder pressures that require the implementation of less standardized and more complex practices, such as EPH, which may necessitate organizational change and, therefore, increase the costs of implementation, an aspect which may explain the asymmetrical bias in favor of EPS seen in corporate responses to such pressures. It is therefore hypothesized that when a system of green training, green performance assessment, green rewards, and green teams are in place to provide employee skills, motivation, fairness, and opportunities to align organizational behavior with the demands of
# 1 | INTRODUCTION

The burgeoning literature on stakeholders and corporate environmental sustainability suggests that when stakeholders are strongly pro-environmental, it is in a firm's best interest to go beyond external regulation and voluntarily allocate resources toward fully implementing corporate practices that promote environmental protection—for example, eco-design, recycling, or environmental policies (González-Benito & González-Benito, 2006, de Sousa Jabbour et al., 2020; Bhatia & Kumar, 2022; Singh et al., 2022).

The distinction proposed by Peattie and Ringer (1994) between practices that form the “hardware” of environmental protection (EPH) and practices that constitute the “software” of environmental protection (EPS) is particularly relevant to understanding how firms should respond to pro-environmental stakeholders. EPS practices are those that embed environmental concerns in decisions about corporate policy, planning, and strategies, such as supplier selection, long-term objectives, and corporate reporting. EPH practices relate to technological and functional changes and introduce green concerns into the firm's competencies, processes, and functions, such as research and development (R&D), production, and marketing (González-Benito & González-Benito, 2006; Peattie & Ringer, 1994). Although both types of EPH and EPS practices are needed in response to greening pressures, only EPH can deliver transformational change and is therefore crucial to successfully achieve firm-level environmental protection.

Contrary to the inferences drawn above, many firms respond to pro-environmental stakeholder pressures with green practice portfolios that lack the diversity and intensity of EPS and EPH implementation needed to protect the environment and satisfy stakeholder expectations (Bromley & Powell, 2012; Wijen, 2014). The causes of this lack of engagement continue to be an understudied area in environmental sustainability research (Shevchenko et al., 2016), particularly concerning emerging market economies. While the literature is increasingly recognizing that a growing field of knowledge (Chaudhary, 2020; Jackson et al., 2014), termed green human resource management (GHRM), can help in facilitating the implementation of environmental practices in response to stakeholder needs (Roscoe et al., 2019), little is known regarding the role and relevance of GHRM practices in the relationship between stakeholder pressures and the intensity of the adoption of EPS and EPH practices. Accordingly, there is a limited understanding of the extent to which GHRM practices are influential in the implementation of both types of environmental protection practices needed to satisfy stakeholders. As a consequence, it is unclear whether GHRM is equally relevant to implement EPS and EPH. Addressing these gaps in knowledge is important for the GHRM literature because there is still a need for more conceptual and theoretical refinement in GHRM (Cooke et al., 2022). In particular, GHRM scholars seek a better theoretical understanding of the processes that explain how GHRM improves environmental performance (Ren et al., 2020).

This study responds to the need for a more refined understanding of the processes linking GHRM with environmental protection. It seeks to extend further and make granular the GHRM literature by

distinguishing between its impact on environmental protection hardware and software practices.

Relevant prior works have studied mediating factors between GHRM practices and antecedents of environmental performance, such as collective organizational citizenship behaviors toward the environment (Renwick, 2020), green creativity (Hameed et al., 2021), and green job pursuit intention (Chaudhary, 2020). Kim et al. (2017) reveal indirect relationships between leader and subordinate voluntary workplace green behaviors mediated by green advocacy among work groups. In turn, a mediating role of GHRM has been found between ethical leadership and employees' green behavior (Islam et al., 2022), top management commitment and environmental performance (Haldorai et al., 2022), CEOs' green beliefs and environmental performance (Ren et al., 2020), and human capital and environmental management (Roxas et al., 2017). However, research at the intersection of stakeholder pressures and GHRM practices is very scarce, which is surprising given the importance of stakeholder pressures in pro-environmental corporate decisions (Ervin et al., 2013). Guerci et al. (2016) studied different GHRM practices mediating relationships between pressures on environmental issues (from regulators and customers) and carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions. However, there is a paucity of studies with a wider palette of stakeholders and green practices, including EPH and EPS. There is still a need to refine and extend GHRM as a mediating role between multiple aggregated stakeholder pressures and the implementation of environmental practices, as few—if any—studies on such mediators exist in the GHRM literature, meaning that relevant research could benefit from knowing more about mediators overall. This paper responds to this need and, in doing so, adds granularity and detail to extant GHRM theory and practice.

Accordingly, the research questions are as follows:

What is the role of GHRM practices in the relationship between stakeholder pressures and the intensity of the adoption of EPS and EPH practices?

To what extent are GHRM practices relevant to explaining variations in the implementation of both EPH and EPS?

Referring to the existing green human resources (GHRM) literature (e.g., Tang et al., 2018) and the ability, motivation, and opportunity theoretical framework, this paper proposes that variations in the implementation of EPS and EPH depend on the extent to which organizations provide employees with the skills, motivation, and opportunities needed to help satisfy the demands of stakeholders with the implementation of environmental practices. The need for skills, motivation, and opportunities is likely to be more pronounced when addressing stakeholder pressures that require the implementation of less standardized and more complex practices, such as EPH, which may necessitate organizational change and, therefore, increase the costs of implementation, an aspect which may explain the asymmetrical bias in favor of EPS seen in corporate responses to such pressures. It is therefore hypothesized that when a system of green training, green performance assessment, green rewards, and green teams are in place to provide employee skills, motivation, fairness, and opportunities to align organizational behavior with the demands of
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /><figcaption>FIGURE 1 Theoretical model</figcaption></figure>

stakeholders, the outcome should be a balanced implementation of both EPS and EPH. Ergo, the implementation of a GHRM system mediates the relationship between green stakeholder pressures and the implementation of EPS and EPH (Figure 1). Moreover, EPH would require greater mediation from GHRM to solve human issues related to stakeholder pressure because EPH practices are costlier and riskier (Sarkis et al., 2010), meaning EPH adoption and implementation requires not only more specific employee skills and knowledge but also stronger staff incentives and opportunities for collaborative work.

The study contributes to the body of research on business strategy and the natural environment by showing that the strategic implementation of GHRM systems mediates the intensity of implementation of both “hardware” and “software” strategies for environmental protection. Moreover, this present work is part of an emerging effort to understand how strategic human resource practices that strengthen employee abilities, motivation, and opportunities mediate patterns of firm-level response to greening pressures in the context of developing economies.

Following this introduction, the theoretical background and hypotheses are presented. This section is followed by the research methodology and results, discussion, limitations, future research ideas, and implications for policy and practice. Finally, concluding remarks are presented.

2 | LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 | Stakeholders and AMO framework

Stakeholder pressures are external mechanisms of monitoring and control that increase the costs and risks of failing to respond to stakeholder inputs (Shi, Connelly, and Hoskisson, 2017). Stakeholder goodwill is maximized when managers can match organizational resources with often-diverging goals that arise from multiple stakeholder pressures (Hill & Jones, 1992). However, human agency problems create a disconnect between stakeholder pressures and organizational responses. To conceptualize problems affecting the translation of stakeholder greening pressures into pro-environmental practices, we

draw on the GHRM research literature, which focuses on HR practices that enhance environmental protection (Dumont et al., 2016; Gedam et al., 2021). A substantial part of GHRM research (e.g., Tang et al., 2018) shares a common foundation in the conceptualization of performance as a function of ability, motivation, and opportunity under the AMO theoretical framework (Applebaum et al., 2000).

Ability-enhancing GHRM practices, such as training in green-related issues, have been found to improve the environmental knowledge, skills, and abilities that staff need to successfully implement green practices (Cop et al., 2020; Guerci et al., 2016; Gupta, 2018; Sarkis et al., 2010; Yong et al., 2020). They endow organizational actors with the skills needed to understand how to best respond to stakeholders, thus addressing emerging market economies' problems of asymmetries of information and lack of intermediary organizations providing environmental knowledge.

Motivation-enhancing GHRM practices (e.g., assessment of performance in aspects related to environmental protection and rewards for environmental achievements) aim to increase employee willingness to commit effort towards environmental protection and provide incentives to find solutions to satisfy stakeholders (Gedam et al., 2021; Berrone & Gomez-Mejia, 2009a; Daily & Huang, 2001; Tang et al., 2018). Performance assessment can further contribute to improving the organization's working climate and perceptions of procedural fairness—the degree to which decision-making processes are fair—(Kim, 2016) through increased transparency, consistency, engagement of all involved, voice to the affected, and bias reduction (Folger & Cropanzano, 1998), thus pre-empting or minimizing the impact of reprisal from disgruntled employees (Bosse & Phillips, 2016). Here, Bosse and Phillips (2016) emphasize that if interventions aimed at enhancing abilities, opportunities, and motivation ignore fairness, they are likely to harm firm performance. Ramus and Steger (2000) find that corporate green initiatives based on employee engagement tend to be more successful when performance assessment is considered a scaffold for understanding green skills and knowledge, creating a sense of purpose regarding green projects (motivation) and allowing employees to understand their strengths and weaknesses so they can find the best way to enhance the firm's sustainability, resulting in fairness and opportunity for all employees.
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>FIGURE 1 Theoretical model</figcaption></figure>

stakeholders, the outcome should be a balanced implementation of both EPS and EPH. Ergo, the implementation of a GHRM system mediates the relationship between green stakeholder pressures and the implementation of EPS and EPH (Figure 1). Moreover, EPH would require greater mediation from GHRM to solve human issues related to stakeholder pressure because EPH practices are costlier and riskier (Sarkis et al., 2010), meaning EPH adoption and implementation requires not only more specific employee skills and knowledge but also stronger staff incentives and opportunities for collaborative work.

The study contributes to the body of research on business strategy and the natural environment by showing that the strategic implementation of GHRM systems mediates the intensity of implementation of both “hardware” and “software” strategies for environmental protection. Moreover, this present work is part of an emerging effort to understand how strategic human resource practices that strengthen employee abilities, motivation, and opportunities mediate patterns of firm-level response to greening pressures in the context of developing economies.

Following this introduction, the theoretical background and hypotheses are presented. This section is followed by the research methodology and results, discussion, limitations, future research ideas, and implications for policy and practice. Finally, concluding remarks are presented.

2 | LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 | Stakeholders and AMO framework

Stakeholder pressures are external mechanisms of monitoring and control that increase the costs and risks of failing to respond to stakeholder inputs (Shi, Connelly, and Hoskisson, 2017). Stakeholder goodwill is maximized when managers can match organizational resources with often-diverging goals that arise from multiple stakeholder pressures (Hill & Jones, 1992). However, human agency problems create a disconnect between stakeholder pressures and organizational responses. To conceptualize problems affecting the translation of stakeholder greening pressures into pro-environmental practices, we

draw on the GHRM research literature, which focuses on HR practices that enhance environmental protection (Dumont et al., 2016; Gedam et al., 2021). A substantial part of GHRM research (e.g., Tang et al., 2018) shares a common foundation in the conceptualization of performance as a function of ability, motivation, and opportunity under the AMO theoretical framework (Applebaum et al., 2000).

Ability-enhancing GHRM practices, such as training in green-related issues, have been found to improve the environmental knowledge, skills, and abilities that staff need to successfully implement green practices (Cop et al., 2020; Guerci et al., 2016; Gupta, 2018; Sarkis et al., 2010; Yong et al., 2020). They endow organizational actors with the skills needed to understand how to best respond to stakeholders, thus addressing emerging market economies' problems of asymmetries of information and lack of intermediary organizations providing environmental knowledge.

Motivation-enhancing GHRM practices (e.g., assessment of performance in aspects related to environmental protection and rewards for environmental achievements) aim to increase employee willingness to commit effort towards environmental protection and provide incentives to find solutions to satisfy stakeholders (Gedam et al., 2021; Berrone & Gomez-Mejia, 2009a; Daily & Huang, 2001; Tang et al., 2018). Performance assessment can further contribute to improving the organization's working climate and perceptions of procedural fairness—the degree to which decision-making processes are fair—(Kim, 2016) through increased transparency, consistency, engagement of all involved, voice to the affected, and bias reduction (Folger & Cropanzano, 1998), thus pre-empting or minimizing the impact of reprisal from disgruntled employees (Bosse & Phillips, 2016). Here, Bosse and Phillips (2016) emphasize that if interventions aimed at enhancing abilities, opportunities, and motivation ignore fairness, they are likely to harm firm performance. Ramus and Steger (2000) find that corporate green initiatives based on employee engagement tend to be more successful when performance assessment is considered a scaffold for understanding green skills and knowledge, creating a sense of purpose regarding green projects (motivation) and allowing employees to understand their strengths and weaknesses so they can find the best way to enhance the firm's sustainability, resulting in fairness and opportunity for all employees.
<table><caption>TABLE 1 Empirical research on the relation between GHRM and green practices</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Green trainin<br>Relation with EPS</th><th>Relation with EPH</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Green training</td><td>+ reporting (Sarkis et al., 2010)<br>+ environmental policy (Daily et al., 2012)<br>+ green supplier selection (de Sousa Jabbour et al., 2017)</td><td>+ ecodesign (de Sousa Jabbour, 2015, Sarkis et al., 2010, Longoni et al., 2018, Singh et al., 2022) + green production, greener raw materials (Longoni et al., 2018, Sarkis et al., 2010).</td></tr><tr><td>Green assessment</td><td>+ reporting, environmental policy, long-term green objectives (Jabbour et al., 2010)</td><td>+ ecodesign, green production, greener raw material (Longoni et al., 2018)</td></tr><tr><td>Green rewards</td><td>+ reporting, environmental policy, long-term green objectives (Jabbour et al., 2010)</td><td>+ ecodesign, green production, greener raw material (Longoni et al., 2018, Singh et al., 2020)</td></tr><tr><td>Green teamwork</td><td>+ environmental policy (Daily et al., 2012),<br>+ full-time green employees (de Sousa Jabbour, 2015)</td><td>+ ecodesign, green production (Daily et al., 2012, de Sousa Jabbour, 2015) + greener raw material (Daily et al., 2012)</td></tr></tbody></table>

Note: We highlight that the authors referenced in Table 1 have used different terms (e.g., green supply chain practices) for green practices categorized as EPH or EPS.

Abbreviations: EPH, environmental protection hardware; EPS, environmental protection software.

Opportunity-enhancing practices, such as teamwork for environmental concerns, provide employees with opportunities to engage with environmental initiatives within their organization, share environmental knowledge, and develop environmental problem-solving skills. These practices help to develop mutual learning and pooling of resources and are critical for eco-innovation, and empirical work in developed and developing countries consistently showcases such initiatives as strong predictors of green practice implementation (Buhl, et al., 2016; Chuang et al., 2016; Gupta, 2018). The notion of organizational fit, positing that human resource management (HRM) enhances the effectiveness of other organizational practices (Wall & Wood, 2005), underpins a central tenet of GHRM research: GHRM practices improve the implementation of green processes and green practices (Ervin et al., 2013; Gholami et al., 2016; Sharma, 2009). Previous empirical research has examined the effects of different GHRM systems component practices, generally considering individual practices, and found an overall positive effect of GHRM in green practices (EPH/EPS)—see Table 1.

Green HRM practices are likely to be more effective in the form of green HRM systems, that is, integrated sets of GHRM practices that enhance ability, motivation, and opportunities to improve organizational environmental performance (Chuang et al., 2016). For instance, the problem-solving capabilities of environmental teams are enhanced if employee participation is rewarded and they have received green training, enabling staff to identify shop floor issues and possible solutions (Ji et al., 2012; Sarkis et al., 2010). Such rewards work best when performance assessment systems are in place and where all employees have fair chances to improve their green performance through training (Daily & Huang, 2001). Rewarding employees for engaging in green training increases their willingness to put extra effort into applying the skills acquired (Buhl et al., 2016). Green training has a larger impact if employees share skills that are acquired through teamwork activities (Vidal-Salazar et al., 2012), as team members can thus monitor each other and exert pressure to conform to team expectations (Cuevas-Rodríguez et al., 2012), thus reducing misalignment and negative attitudes.

Accordingly, GHRM practices work better in bundles forming a green HRM system (Adomako & Nguyen, 2020; Chuang et al., 2016; Pellegrini et al., 2018). Recently, Zaid et al. (2018) study the impact of bundles of GHRM practices on green supply chain management and environmental performance. However, to date, empirical studies have not examined the extent to which such GHRM systems are used to respond to multiple stakeholder green pressures.

## 2.2 | The mediating role of GHRM practices

Conceptual and empirical research examining the mediating role of GHRM practices between stakeholder pressures and environmental outcomes is scarce. The literature links stakeholders to some GHRM practices (e.g., Guerci et al., 2016) or GHRM practices to environmental practices (e.g., Kock et al., 2012; Yong et al., 2020). However, these separate relations are not enough to demonstrate a mediation effect. Indeed, the work of Sarkis et al. (2010) is still the only extant study researching the mediating influence of a GHRM practice—green training—in the relationship between aggregated pro-environmental pressures and a range of green practices.

The aforementioned literature has two major gaps. First, it does not differentiate between EPS and EPH. The distinction between EPS and EPH is not trivial, as literature that does not differentiate between these types of practices (e.g., Guerci et al., 2016) is not useful for providing insights to explain why many firms—especially large firms—either do not fully address or try to appease stakeholder pressures with less costly EPS practices—despite apparently having the resources, capabilities, and motivation needed to achieve true environmental protection involving both EPS and EPH (Shevchenko et al., 2016). Here, Shevchenko et al. (2016) argue that EPS practices on their own are merely “offsetting practices” aimed at distracting stakeholders from the lack of investment in EPH, which is crucial to delivering transformational change. Losing the goodwill of stakeholders would not be in these companies' best interests and would potentially ultimately prove costlier, particularly when intangible
<table><caption>TABLE 1 Empirical research on the relation between GHRM and green practices</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Green trainin<br>Relation with EPS</th><th>Relation with EPH</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Green training</td><td>+ reporting (Sarkis et al., 2010)<br>+ environmental policy (Daily et al., 2012)<br>+ green supplier selection (de Sousa Jabbour et al., 2017)</td><td>+ ecodesign (de Sousa Jabbour, 2015, Sarkis et al., 2010, Longoni et al., 2018, Singh et al., 2022) + green production, greener raw materials (Longoni et al., 2018, Sarkis et al., 2010).</td></tr><tr><td>Green assessment</td><td>+ reporting, environmental policy, long-term green objectives (Jabbour et al., 2010)</td><td>+ ecodesign, green production, greener raw material (Longoni et al., 2018)</td></tr><tr><td>Green rewards</td><td>+ reporting, environmental policy, long-term green objectives (Jabbour et al., 2010)</td><td>+ ecodesign, green production, greener raw material (Longoni et al., 2018, Singh et al., 2020)</td></tr><tr><td>Green teamwork</td><td>+ environmental policy (Daily et al., 2012),<br>+ full-time green employees (de Sousa Jabbour, 2015)</td><td>+ ecodesign, green production (Daily et al., 2012, de Sousa Jabbour, 2015) + greener raw material (Daily et al., 2012)</td></tr></tbody></table>

Note: We highlight that the authors referenced in Table 1 have used different terms (e.g., green supply chain practices) for green practices categorized as EPH or EPS.

Abbreviations: EPH, environmental protection hardware; EPS, environmental protection software.

Opportunity-enhancing practices, such as teamwork for environmental concerns, provide employees with opportunities to engage with environmental initiatives within their organization, share environmental knowledge, and develop environmental problem-solving skills. These practices help to develop mutual learning and pooling of resources and are critical for eco-innovation, and empirical work in developed and developing countries consistently showcases such initiatives as strong predictors of green practice implementation (Buhl, et al., 2016; Chuang et al., 2016; Gupta, 2018). The notion of organizational fit, positing that human resource management (HRM) enhances the effectiveness of other organizational practices (Wall & Wood, 2005), underpins a central tenet of GHRM research: GHRM practices improve the implementation of green processes and green practices (Ervin et al., 2013; Gholami et al., 2016; Sharma, 2009). Previous empirical research has examined the effects of different GHRM systems component practices, generally considering individual practices, and found an overall positive effect of GHRM in green practices (EPH/EPS)—see Table 1.

Green HRM practices are likely to be more effective in the form of green HRM systems, that is, integrated sets of GHRM practices that enhance ability, motivation, and opportunities to improve organizational environmental performance (Chuang et al., 2016). For instance, the problem-solving capabilities of environmental teams are enhanced if employee participation is rewarded and they have received green training, enabling staff to identify shop floor issues and possible solutions (Ji et al., 2012; Sarkis et al., 2010). Such rewards work best when performance assessment systems are in place and where all employees have fair chances to improve their green performance through training (Daily & Huang, 2001). Rewarding employees for engaging in green training increases their willingness to put extra effort into applying the skills acquired (Buhl et al., 2016). Green training has a larger impact if employees share skills that are acquired through teamwork activities (Vidal-Salazar et al., 2012), as team members can thus monitor each other and exert pressure to conform to team expectations (Cuevas-Rodríguez et al., 2012), thus reducing misalignment and negative attitudes.

Accordingly, GHRM practices work better in bundles forming a green HRM system (Adomako & Nguyen, 2020; Chuang et al., 2016; Pellegrini et al., 2018). Recently, Zaid et al. (2018) study the impact of bundles of GHRM practices on green supply chain management and environmental performance. However, to date, empirical studies have not examined the extent to which such GHRM systems are used to respond to multiple stakeholder green pressures.

## 2.2 | The mediating role of GHRM practices

Conceptual and empirical research examining the mediating role of GHRM practices between stakeholder pressures and environmental outcomes is scarce. The literature links stakeholders to some GHRM practices (e.g., Guerci et al., 2016) or GHRM practices to environmental practices (e.g., Kock et al., 2012; Yong et al., 2020). However, these separate relations are not enough to demonstrate a mediation effect. Indeed, the work of Sarkis et al. (2010) is still the only extant study researching the mediating influence of a GHRM practice—green training—in the relationship between aggregated pro-environmental pressures and a range of green practices.

The aforementioned literature has two major gaps. First, it does not differentiate between EPS and EPH. The distinction between EPS and EPH is not trivial, as literature that does not differentiate between these types of practices (e.g., Guerci et al., 2016) is not useful for providing insights to explain why many firms—especially large firms—either do not fully address or try to appease stakeholder pressures with less costly EPS practices—despite apparently having the resources, capabilities, and motivation needed to achieve true environmental protection involving both EPS and EPH (Shevchenko et al., 2016). Here, Shevchenko et al. (2016) argue that EPS practices on their own are merely “offsetting practices” aimed at distracting stakeholders from the lack of investment in EPH, which is crucial to delivering transformational change. Losing the goodwill of stakeholders would not be in these companies’ best interests and would potentially ultimately prove costlier, particularly when intangible
resources such as brand and reputation are involved (Mitchell et al., 2016). A better conceptualization of the extent to which GHRM practices efficiently translate green pressures into both EPH and EPS will also contribute to GHRM theory's quest for revealing the “black box” of processes underpinning the relation between GHRM and environmental performance (Ren et al., 2020) while extending the use of stakeholder theory in GHRM research.

Second, from the lens of the AMO framework, a major shortcom-
ing in the relevant literature is that previous pioneering GHRM studies
did not include the “opportunity” dimension and focused only on
practices related to abilities and motivation. Additionally, they ana-
lyzed GHRM practices separately and often focused on one or two
practices (which implicitly assumes that the effects of HRM practices
are additive) (Veld et al., 2010). However, research in HRM systems—
defined as a highly integrated set of HRM practices that are aligned to
achieve organizational goals (Jiang et al., 2012)—shows that the
effects of certain HR practices increase when implemented together
(e.g., reward and assessment) and that HR practices can be better
designed as a system in which such practices reinforce each other
(Bello-Pintado, 2015; Boselie et al., 2005; Huselid, 1995). This gap is
significant for both theory and practice, as it implies that conclusions
about the efficacy of HRM practices that do not account for systems
effects may be misleading (Jackson et al., 2014; Veld et al., 2010).
Thus, GHRM research urgently needs to endorse a systematic per-
spective to improve the overall practical and theoretical relevance of
GHRM (Dubois & Dubois, 2012; Guerci & Carollo, 2016; Jackson
et al., 2014; Tang et al., 2018).

3 | THEORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF HYPOTHESES

Stakeholder theory views firms as networks of formal and informal
contracts between stakeholders, such as customers, shareholders,
government, employees, communities, and managers (Kock
et al., 2012; Mitchell et al., 2016). Stakeholder greening pressures
refer to the aggregation of pressures from multiple stakeholders
demanding that companies improve their environmental performance
(Kitsis & Chen, 2021).

A combination of aligned pressures from multiple stakeholders
increases the centrality of the issues advocated and the likelihood of
managerial response (Adomako and Nguyen, 2020; Zameer
et al., 2021). Those firms failing to respond to stakeholder greening
pressures not only risk losing stakeholder goodwill and resources but
may also further endure customers boycotts, fines, and reputational
damage (Buysse & Verbeke, 2003) Therefore, as per stakeholder
theory, it is in companies' best interest to be responsive to greening
pressures (Payán-Sánchez et al., 2018; Haffar & Searcy, 2018; Plaza-
Úbeda et al., 2009).

However, stakeholder pressures often fail to trigger action at the
level required (Paulraj et al., 2017; Zameer et al., 2021; Zhu
et al., 2013) because firms' responsiveness is hindered by human
agency problems (Mitchell et al., 2016), such as a lack of skills to

understand how to address demands, a lack of motivation to invest
resources to find solutions (Kock et al., 2012), and a lack of opportuni-
ties to share knowledge and promote innovative responses (de Sousa
Jabbour, 2015).

Higher levels of stakeholder greening pressures will increase the importance of addressing green issues and bring a sense of urgency to respond to these pressures and avoid retaliation, for example, loss of social or regulatory license (Vazquez-Brust et al., 2010). Human agency problems affecting the firm's ability to react to pressures will have increased visibility (Mitchell et al., 2016). Ergo, firms aiming to satisfy stakeholder demands will look for solutions to enhance human agency and reduce the lack of motivation, skills, and opportunities that hamper responsiveness (Martinez et al., 2019). Mitchell et al. (2016) observe that stakeholder pressures can only be addressed successfully through robust panfunctional mechanisms that reach all organizational actors. HRM is the only business function that impacts employees in all other organizational functions (Dubois & Dubois, 2012); therefore, increases in green pressures should elicit increased implementation of GHRM practices.

Since GHRM practices are more effective when implemented as a
system (Chuang et al., 2016) and stronger stakeholder pressures
increase the need for effective organizational responses (Vazquez &
Liston-Heyes, 2008), stronger pressures are more likely to result in
the implementation of GHRM practices as a system providing abilities,
motivation and opportunities to address greening pressures (Ren
et al., 2020).

In summary, stronger stakeholder environmental pressures increase the centrality and embeddedness of green issues within the organization as well as the importance of tackling internal barriers to environmental action (Vazquez & Liston-Heyes, 2008). Therefore, increasing pressures incentivize firms to develop GHRM systems that enhance human agency to provide an effective response to these pressures.

H1. Stakeholder greening pressures will be positively related to the development of GHRM systems.

Well-developed GHRM systems will further increase the imple-
mentation of environmental practices because they also address
several practice-specific problems that may hamper the full implemen-
tation of EPS and EPH.

Dual identity is a type of problem that arises when managers must balance the delivery of public goods (i.e., environmental protection) with the delivery of private goods (i.e., business benefits). Managers implementing EPS and EPH need to protect the environment while also making business sense (Rivera-Santos et al., 2017) and avoiding both green myopia (e.g., introducing environmental products that are unappealing to customers) and the overemphasis on business performance at the expense of greenness.

Environmental teams with both business and green skills can
address dual identity problems that may otherwise paralyze the imple-
mentation of EPH and EPS (Rivera-Santos et al., 2017). Environmental
assessment and rewards for managers and technical staff achieving
resources such as brand and reputation are involved (Mitchell et al., 2016). A better conceptualization of the extent to which GHRM practices efficiently translate green pressures into both EPH and EPS will also contribute to GHRM theory's quest for revealing the “black box” of processes underpinning the relation between GHRM and environmental performance (Ren et al., 2020) while extending the use of stakeholder theory in GHRM research.

Second, from the lens of the AMO framework, a major shortcom-
ing in the relevant literature is that previous pioneering GHRM studies
did not include the “opportunity” dimension and focused only on
practices related to abilities and motivation. Additionally, they ana-
lyzed GHRM practices separately and often focused on one or two
practices (which implicitly assumes that the effects of HRM practices
are additive) (Veld et al., 2010). However, research in HRM systems—
defined as a highly integrated set of HRM practices that are aligned to
achieve organizational goals (Jiang et al., 2012)—shows that the
effects of certain HR practices increase when implemented together
(e.g., reward and assessment) and that HR practices can be better
designed as a system in which such practices reinforce each other
(Bello-Pintado, 2015; Boselie et al., 2005; Huselid, 1995). This gap is
significant for both theory and practice, as it implies that conclusions
about the efficacy of HRM practices that do not account for systems
effects may be misleading (Jackson et al., 2014; Veld et al., 2010).
Thus, GHRM research urgently needs to endorse a systematic per-
spective to improve the overall practical and theoretical relevance of
GHRM (Dubois & Dubois, 2012; Guerci & Carollo, 2016; Jackson
et al., 2014; Tang et al., 2018).

3 | THEORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF HYPOTHESES

Stakeholder theory views firms as networks of formal and informal
contracts between stakeholders, such as customers, shareholders,
government, employees, communities, and managers (Kock
et al., 2012; Mitchell et al., 2016). Stakeholder greening pressures
refer to the aggregation of pressures from multiple stakeholders
demanding that companies improve their environmental performance
(Kitsis & Chen, 2021).

A combination of aligned pressures from multiple stakeholders
increases the centrality of the issues advocated and the likelihood of
managerial response (Adomako and Nguyen, 2020; Zameer
et al., 2021). Those firms failing to respond to stakeholder greening
pressures not only risk losing stakeholder goodwill and resources but
may also further endure customers boycotts, fines, and reputational
damage (Buysse & Verbeke, 2003) Therefore, as per stakeholder
theory, it is in companies' best interest to be responsive to greening
pressures (Payán-Sánchez et al., 2018; Haffar & Searcy, 2018; Plaza-
Úbeda et al., 2009).

However, stakeholder pressures often fail to trigger action at the
level required (Paulraj et al., 2017; Zameer et al., 2021; Zhu
et al., 2013) because firms' responsiveness is hindered by human
agency problems (Mitchell et al., 2016), such as a lack of skills to

understand how to address demands, a lack of motivation to invest
resources to find solutions (Kock et al., 2012), and a lack of opportuni-
ties to share knowledge and promote innovative responses (de Sousa
Jabbour, 2015).

Higher levels of stakeholder greening pressures will increase the importance of addressing green issues and bring a sense of urgency to respond to these pressures and avoid retaliation, for example, loss of social or regulatory license (Vazquez-Brust et al., 2010). Human agency problems affecting the firm's ability to react to pressures will have increased visibility (Mitchell et al., 2016). Ergo, firms aiming to satisfy stakeholder demands will look for solutions to enhance human agency and reduce the lack of motivation, skills, and opportunities that hamper responsiveness (Martinez et al., 2019). Mitchell et al. (2016) observe that stakeholder pressures can only be addressed successfully through robust panfunctional mechanisms that reach all organizational actors. HRM is the only business function that impacts employees in all other organizational functions (Dubois & Dubois, 2012); therefore, increases in green pressures should elicit increased implementation of GHRM practices.

Since GHRM practices are more effective when implemented as a
system (Chuang et al., 2016) and stronger stakeholder pressures
increase the need for effective organizational responses (Vazquez &
Liston-Heyes, 2008), stronger pressures are more likely to result in
the implementation of GHRM practices as a system providing abilities,
motivation and opportunities to address greening pressures (Ren
et al., 2020).

In summary, stronger stakeholder environmental pressures increase the centrality and embeddedness of green issues within the organization as well as the importance of tackling internal barriers to environmental action (Vazquez & Liston-Heyes, 2008). Therefore, increasing pressures incentivize firms to develop GHRM systems that enhance human agency to provide an effective response to these pressures.

H1. Stakeholder greening pressures will be positively related to the development of GHRM systems.

Well-developed GHRM systems will further increase the imple-
mentation of environmental practices because they also address
several practice-specific problems that may hamper the full implemen-
tation of EPS and EPH.

Dual identity is a type of problem that arises when managers must balance the delivery of public goods (i.e., environmental protection) with the delivery of private goods (i.e., business benefits). Managers implementing EPS and EPH need to protect the environment while also making business sense (Rivera-Santos et al., 2017) and avoiding both green myopia (e.g., introducing environmental products that are unappealing to customers) and the overemphasis on business performance at the expense of greenness.

Environmental teams with both business and green skills can
address dual identity problems that may otherwise paralyze the imple-
mentation of EPH and EPS (Rivera-Santos et al., 2017). Environmental
assessment and rewards for managers and technical staff achieving
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

environmental targets can prevent inaction or a self-interested focus on less risky EPS and a few profit-maximizing EPH practices (Berrone & Gomez-Mejia, 2009a). Without cross-functional engagement and coordination, EPS adoption may result in merely symbolic actions.

Thus, complementing green teamwork with environmental assessment and rewards for all staff can sustain a long-term commitment to fully implement EPS practices (Wolf, 2013). Training on standards and sustainability awareness facilitates the implementation of EPS, whereas training on state-of-the-art environmental technologies contributes to the implementation of EPH (Buhl et al., 2016).

Last, high levels of stakeholder greening pressures will amplify the salience of environmental issues within organizations (Buysse & Verbeke, 2003; Freeman et al., 2017). Salient issues are more vulnerable to acts of retaliation (e.g., withdrawal of collaboration and sabotage) arising from perceived procedural injustice (Bosse & Phillips, 2016). To strengthen the fairness of internal procedures to address green demands, firms can develop performance assessments including environmental targets.

As previously discussed, GHRM practices work best as a system. Therefore, a GHRM system enhances the implementation of both EPH and EPS because where such a system is present, organizational actors are more motivated and able to achieve green objectives, have opportunities to engage in teamwork to develop innovative solutions, and feel that their endeavors are fairly regarded. Therefore:

**H2.** The development of GHRM systems will positively influence the intensity of the implementation of environmental protection “software” practices.

**H3.** The development of GHRM systems will positively influence the intensity of the implementation of environmental protection “hardware” practices.

Having established connections between stakeholder environmental pressures and GHRM and between GHRM and the implementation of EPS and EPH, we now consider the question of how stakeholder pressures increase EPS and EPH implementation by influencing GHRM. Central to our argument is the knowledge that those firms that implement EPS and EPH will not necessarily be those who simply display high levels of stakeholder greening pressures (Kitsis & Chen, 2021; Paulraj et al., 2017); rather, it will be those firms that use a GHRM system to address human problems affecting the implementation of EPH and EPS in response to such pressures (Jackson et al., 2014, Tang et al., 2018).

GHRM systems, by providing organizations with the mechanisms to address human problems affecting responsiveness to stakeholder pressures (Bahuguna et al., 2022; Yong et al., 2020), are well positioned for translating the effects of stakeholder pressures into the organizational implementation of EPS and EPH. (Ervin et al., 2013; Guerci et al., 2016).

Essentially, GHRM systems can be seen as a central mechanism that indirectly channels the influence of stakeholder environmental pressures into EPS and EPH implementation (Renwick, 2020). Practices

that can be applied in a broad fashion that works to simultaneously serve various diverse stakeholders, such as GHRM, are deployed when firms need a mechanism to enhance their responsiveness to multiple pro-environmental stakeholders (Martinez et al., 2019).

For example, Brazilian legislation makes organizations responsible for reducing waste after their products are used (de Sousa Jabbour et al., 2017). In response, a Brazilian-based cosmetics company implemented training about legislative requirements and created cross-functional teams involving organizational and supply chain actors to find innovative solutions balancing waste reduction with financial goals, green appraisals, and green awards for innovative ideas. The resulting implementation of environmental protection practices included reduced packaging and a marketing mix, offering refills that also satisfy customers, distributors, and shareholders (Coelho et al., 2020, de Sousa Jabbour et al., 2017). Thus,

**H4.** The influence of stakeholder greening pressures on the intensity of the implementation of environmental protection “software” practices will be mediated by the development of GHRM systems.

**H5.** The influence of stakeholder greening pressures on the intensity of the implementation of environmental protection “hardware” practices will be mediated by the development of GHRM systems.

Although GHRM has a mediating effect on both EPH and EPS, EPH tends to make much greater demands on firms' resources and is riskier during implementation than EPS (Berrone & Gomez-Mejia, 2009b; Bromley & Powell, 2012). Our theoretical interpretation is that human barriers to responding to stakeholder pressures tend to be more salient for EPH than for EPS because EPH has high risk, costs, and knowledge specificity.

EPH practices not only carry high levels of risk related to quality issues, hidden costs, or inadequate business performance (Berrone & Gomez-Mejia, 2009a; Bromley & Powell, 2012) but also offer more opportunities than EPS to generate business value through technological and functional innovation (Delmas, 2001). Since the stakes are higher, dual identity problems become more pronounced. Uncertainty about outcomes and responsibilities can linger (Christman, 2004) since it takes time for the results and unforeseen side effects of new practices to become apparent (Buysse & Verbeke, 2003). The adoption of EPH practices such as eco-design and green marketing seems to be more affected by a lack of training because implementation requires idiosyncratic and extensive knowledge and expertise (Buysse & Verbeke, 2003).

As human problems are higher with EPH than EPS, the need to address them using GHRM systems is also stronger, and the influence of GHRM systems on the intensity of implementation is more pronounced. Accordingly, we hypothesize that the importance of GHRM systems in addressing human problems and translating the effects of stakeholder pressures into the organizational implementation of green practices will be stronger for EPH than it will be for EPS. Consequently,
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

environmental targets can prevent inaction or a self-interested focus on less risky EPS and a few profit-maximizing EPH practices (Berrone & Gomez-Mejia, 2009a). Without cross-functional engagement and coordination, EPS adoption may result in merely symbolic actions.

Thus, complementing green teamwork with environmental assessment and rewards for all staff can sustain a long-term commitment to fully implement EPS practices (Wolf, 2013). Training on standards and sustainability awareness facilitates the implementation of EPS, whereas training on state-of-the-art environmental technologies contributes to the implementation of EPH (Buhl et al., 2016).

Last, high levels of stakeholder greening pressures will amplify the salience of environmental issues within organizations (Buysse & Verbeke, 2003; Freeman et al., 2017). Salient issues are more vulnerable to acts of retaliation (e.g., withdrawal of collaboration and sabotage) arising from perceived procedural injustice (Bosse & Phillips, 2016). To strengthen the fairness of internal procedures to address green demands, firms can develop performance assessments including environmental targets.

As previously discussed, GHRM practices work best as a system. Therefore, a GHRM system enhances the implementation of both EPH and EPS because where such a system is present, organizational actors are more motivated and able to achieve green objectives, have opportunities to engage in teamwork to develop innovative solutions, and feel that their endeavors are fairly regarded. Therefore:

**H2.** The development of GHRM systems will positively influence the intensity of the implementation of environmental protection “software” practices.

**H3.** The development of GHRM systems will positively influence the intensity of the implementation of environmental protection “hardware” practices.

Having established connections between stakeholder environmental pressures and GHRM and between GHRM and the implementation of EPS and EPH, we now consider the question of how stakeholder pressures increase EPS and EPH implementation by influencing GHRM. Central to our argument is the knowledge that those firms that implement EPS and EPH will not necessarily be those who simply display high levels of stakeholder greening pressures (Kitsis & Chen, 2021; Paulraj et al., 2017); rather, it will be those firms that use a GHRM system to address human problems affecting the implementation of EPH and EPS in response to such pressures (Jackson et al., 2014, Tang et al., 2018).

GHRM systems, by providing organizations with the mechanisms to address human problems affecting responsiveness to stakeholder pressures (Bahuguna et al., 2022; Yong et al., 2020), are well positioned for translating the effects of stakeholder pressures into the organizational implementation of EPS and EPH. (Ervin et al., 2013; Guerci et al., 2016).

Essentially, GHRM systems can be seen as a central mechanism that indirectly channels the influence of stakeholder environmental pressures into EPS and EPH implementation (Renwick, 2020). Practices

that can be applied in a broad fashion that works to simultaneously serve various diverse stakeholders, such as GHRM, are deployed when firms need a mechanism to enhance their responsiveness to multiple pro-environmental stakeholders (Martinez et al., 2019).

For example, Brazilian legislation makes organizations responsible for reducing waste after their products are used (de Sousa Jabbour et al., 2017). In response, a Brazilian-based cosmetics company implemented training about legislative requirements and created cross-functional teams involving organizational and supply chain actors to find innovative solutions balancing waste reduction with financial goals, green appraisals, and green awards for innovative ideas. The resulting implementation of environmental protection practices included reduced packaging and a marketing mix, offering refills that also satisfy customers, distributors, and shareholders (Coelho et al., 2020, de Sousa Jabbour et al., 2017). Thus,

**H4.** The influence of stakeholder greening pressures on the intensity of the implementation of environmental protection “software” practices will be mediated by the development of GHRM systems.

**H5.** The influence of stakeholder greening pressures on the intensity of the implementation of environmental protection “hardware” practices will be mediated by the development of GHRM systems.

Although GHRM has a mediating effect on both EPH and EPS, EPH tends to make much greater demands on firms' resources and is riskier during implementation than EPS (Berrone & Gomez-Mejia, 2009b; Bromley & Powell, 2012). Our theoretical interpretation is that human barriers to responding to stakeholder pressures tend to be more salient for EPH than for EPS because EPH has high risk, costs, and knowledge specificity.

EPH practices not only carry high levels of risk related to quality issues, hidden costs, or inadequate business performance (Berrone & Gomez-Mejia, 2009a; Bromley & Powell, 2012) but also offer more opportunities than EPS to generate business value through technological and functional innovation (Delmas, 2001). Since the stakes are higher, dual identity problems become more pronounced. Uncertainty about outcomes and responsibilities can linger (Christman, 2004) since it takes time for the results and unforeseen side effects of new practices to become apparent (Buysse & Verbeke, 2003). The adoption of EPH practices such as eco-design and green marketing seems to be more affected by a lack of training because implementation requires idiosyncratic and extensive knowledge and expertise (Buysse & Verbeke, 2003).

As human problems are higher with EPH than EPS, the need to address them using GHRM systems is also stronger, and the influence of GHRM systems on the intensity of implementation is more pronounced. Accordingly, we hypothesize that the importance of GHRM systems in addressing human problems and translating the effects of stakeholder pressures into the organizational implementation of green practices will be stronger for EPH than it will be for EPS. Consequently,
H6. GHRM systems have a stronger mediating effect on EPH than on EPS.

# 4 | METHODOLOGY

## 4.1 | Research design context

Brazil was chosen as the research context for this study because the implementation of environmental practices such as environmental reporting (Global Reporting Initiative, 2013) and green production processes is widespread there, as green concerns are deeply embedded in Brazilian society and companies there face strong pro-environmental stakeholders (Silva et al., 2017). Government regulation and enforcement in environmental matters are also stronger in Brazil than in other emerging economies (Alon et al., 2010), and Brazil has high levels of green portfolio investment (Initiative Climate Bonds, 2017), ISO 14001 certification, and environmental insurance (MMAI, 2016). The Brazilian stock exchange, BM&FBOVESPA, ranks stocks in terms of environmental responsibility (BM&FBOVESPA, 2019), and local media closely scrutinizes environmental incidents, while civil campaigns against polluting firms are frequent (MMAI, 2016). Additionally, Brazilian culture emphasizes nonconfrontation, fairness, and collaboration toward shared goals (Chatin, 2016). HRM practices are very important to achieving these ends, and Brazilian HR departments have a long tradition of dealing with stakeholder pressures. Many Brazilian-based organizations consider their employees “green change agents” and actively invest in the adoption of green training, assessment, nonfinancial rewards, and teamwork (Fleury & Fleury, 2011). Brazil’s HRM association (ABRH) fully endorses GHRM on its webpage (Trapenard, 2018, no page): “Increasingly more companies want sustainability, and HRM is the driver of this change through HR practices.”

Practical examples of how firms located in Brazil have used systems of GHRM practices (e.g., training, assessment, rewards, assessment, and teamwork) to channel the translation of stakeholder pressures into meaningful workplace green practices can be found. For instance, one Brazilian case—Flex Company—adopted green teams to address some of their most critical environmental impacts related to solids and water waste to satisfy increasing stakeholder pressures related to EPH. As an HR manager of Flex stated, “we used green teams to develop awareness and motivation regarding the environment, and thus employees were able to come up with innovative approaches to critically reduce the environmental impacts that were diminishing the competitiveness of our firm” (MMAI, 2019).

## 4.2 | Primary data collection

Primary data were collected between 2014 and 2015 via an e-mail survey provided to sustainability-related managers within 320 initial organizations located in Brazil and resulted in 106 valid responses. To identify relevant participants, we used the government-recognized

database of the Brazilian Institute for Metrology and Certification (INMETRO). Using the names of manufacturing and primary organizations as an initial field, we matched INMETRO data with another government database from the Brazilian Institute of the Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA) to add complementary data on the number of employees, ownership, factory age, ISO-9001 and ISO-14001 accreditation, e-mail addresses and telephone numbers of organizations and respondents. Firms with missing data on any of the above variables were discarded. We contacted the remaining firms to verify the accuracy of the contact information, which resulted in a sample of 320 organizations with verified contact information. The sustainability managers in these firms were sent questionnaires, a cover sheet, and instructions by e-mail in batches. The intended recipients were telephoned to mitigate a possible lack of responses due to the delivery of our e-mail survey to junk e-mail folders.

Before primary data collection, the questionnaire was pretested by three senior researchers and two expert external consultants to improve the scale-item clarity and readability of the cover sheet and instructions (Podsakoff et al., 2012). Following Hair et al. (2016), G-Power software was used to calculate the minimum sample size needed to achieve an acceptable power of 0.8 in our analysis, resulting in a suggested sample size of 98, and we collected final, valid responses from 106 firms. A comparable number of valid responses has been used recently in other similar studies (e.g., 103 in Vlajčić et al. (2018), 112 in Yong et al. (2020), and 107 in Andersson et al. (2022)). The response rate of 33% obtained in our study is similar to or higher than those in similar studies, for example, Andersson et al. (2022), Yong et al. (2020), Christman (2004), Delmas (2001), and Wolf (2013). Checks for nonresponse bias did not show significant differences between those who responded and the sample as a whole.

To minimize the chance of common method bias (CMB), the survey questionnaire was designed following the guidance of Podsakoff et al. (2003), and the use of Harman's single factor test revealed four factors with eigenvalues greater than 1.0 accounting for 70% of the total variance. The first factor accounted for 46% of the variance, and we used additional confirmatory analysis (Podsakoff et al., 2012; Vidal-Salazar et al., 2012), obtaining variance inflation factor (VIF) values lower than 1.5 for all the latent variables of our model. Both these tests and an additional robustness test with an objective variable (Jordan & Troth, 2020) (see description at the end of Section 4) suggested that CMB did not affect the results of the study.

## 4.3 | Secondary data collection

Secondary data were collected in three instances between 2014 and 2017: in 2014, a complete set of secondary data (size, age, and ownership) was compiled for the 320 initial firms. This set was updated in 2015, after the implementation of the survey, for the 106 firms with valid responses. ISO 9000 data were added. A new wave of secondary data collection was carried out in 2017 for the 106 firms. It involved gathering secondary data from sustainability reports, financial reports,
H6. GHRM systems have a stronger mediating effect on EPH than on EPS.

# 4 | METHODOLOGY

## 4.1 | Research design context

Brazil was chosen as the research context for this study because the implementation of environmental practices such as environmental reporting (Global Reporting Initiative, 2013) and green production processes is widespread there, as green concerns are deeply embedded in Brazilian society and companies there face strong pro-environmental stakeholders (Silva et al., 2017). Government regulation and enforcement in environmental matters are also stronger in Brazil than in other emerging economies (Alon et al., 2010), and Brazil has high levels of green portfolio investment (Initiative Climate Bonds, 2017), ISO 14001 certification, and environmental insurance (MMAI, 2016). The Brazilian stock exchange, BM&FBOVESPA, ranks stocks in terms of environmental responsibility (BM&FBOVESPA, 2019), and local media closely scrutinizes environmental incidents, while civil campaigns against polluting firms are frequent (MMAI, 2016). Additionally, Brazilian culture emphasizes nonconfrontation, fairness, and collaboration toward shared goals (Chatin, 2016). HRM practices are very important to achieving these ends, and Brazilian HR departments have a long tradition of dealing with stakeholder pressures. Many Brazilian-based organizations consider their employees “green change agents” and actively invest in the adoption of green training, assessment, nonfinancial rewards, and teamwork (Fleury & Fleury, 2011). Brazil’s HRM association (ABRH) fully endorses GHRM on its webpage (Trapenard, 2018, no page): “Increasingly more companies want sustainability, and HRM is the driver of this change through HR practices.”

Practical examples of how firms located in Brazil have used systems of GHRM practices (e.g., training, assessment, rewards, assessment, and teamwork) to channel the translation of stakeholder pressures into meaningful workplace green practices can be found. For instance, one Brazilian case—Flex Company—adopted green teams to address some of their most critical environmental impacts related to solids and water waste to satisfy increasing stakeholder pressures related to EPH. As an HR manager of Flex stated, “we used green teams to develop awareness and motivation regarding the environment, and thus employees were able to come up with innovative approaches to critically reduce the environmental impacts that were diminishing the competitiveness of our firm” (MMAI, 2019).

## 4.2 | Primary data collection

Primary data were collected between 2014 and 2015 via an e-mail survey provided to sustainability-related managers within 320 initial organizations located in Brazil and resulted in 106 valid responses. To identify relevant participants, we used the government-recognized

database of the Brazilian Institute for Metrology and Certification (INMETRO). Using the names of manufacturing and primary organizations as an initial field, we matched INMETRO data with another government database from the Brazilian Institute of the Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA) to add complementary data on the number of employees, ownership, factory age, ISO-9001 and ISO-14001 accreditation, e-mail addresses and telephone numbers of organizations and respondents. Firms with missing data on any of the above variables were discarded. We contacted the remaining firms to verify the accuracy of the contact information, which resulted in a sample of 320 organizations with verified contact information. The sustainability managers in these firms were sent questionnaires, a cover sheet, and instructions by e-mail in batches. The intended recipients were telephoned to mitigate a possible lack of responses due to the delivery of our e-mail survey to junk e-mail folders.

Before primary data collection, the questionnaire was pretested by three senior researchers and two expert external consultants to improve the scale-item clarity and readability of the cover sheet and instructions (Podsakoff et al., 2012). Following Hair et al. (2016), G-Power software was used to calculate the minimum sample size needed to achieve an acceptable power of 0.8 in our analysis, resulting in a suggested sample size of 98, and we collected final, valid responses from 106 firms. A comparable number of valid responses has been used recently in other similar studies (e.g., 103 in Vlajčić et al. (2018), 112 in Yong et al. (2020), and 107 in Andersson et al. (2022)). The response rate of 33% obtained in our study is similar to or higher than those in similar studies, for example, Andersson et al. (2022), Yong et al. (2020), Christman (2004), Delmas (2001), and Wolf (2013). Checks for nonresponse bias did not show significant differences between those who responded and the sample as a whole.

To minimize the chance of common method bias (CMB), the survey questionnaire was designed following the guidance of Podsakoff et al. (2003), and the use of Harman's single factor test revealed four factors with eigenvalues greater than 1.0 accounting for 70% of the total variance. The first factor accounted for 46% of the variance, and we used additional confirmatory analysis (Podsakoff et al., 2012; Vidal-Salazar et al., 2012), obtaining variance inflation factor (VIF) values lower than 1.5 for all the latent variables of our model. Both these tests and an additional robustness test with an objective variable (Jordan & Troth, 2020) (see description at the end of Section 4) suggested that CMB did not affect the results of the study.

## 4.3 | Secondary data collection

Secondary data were collected in three instances between 2014 and 2017: in 2014, a complete set of secondary data (size, age, and ownership) was compiled for the 320 initial firms. This set was updated in 2015, after the implementation of the survey, for the 106 firms with valid responses. ISO 9000 data were added. A new wave of secondary data collection was carried out in 2017 for the 106 firms. It involved gathering secondary data from sustainability reports, financial reports,
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

<table><caption>TABLE 2 Details on the development of scales</caption><thead><tr><th>Construct</th><th>Development</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Dependent variables—EPS and EPH</td><td>We carried out an exhaustive review of green practices in organizations and in the natural environment literature, focusing on practices used in previous empirical studies which were repeatedly observed across a range of manufacturing and primary industries (Buysse & Verbeke, 2003; González-Benito & González-Benito, 2006; Peattie & Ringer, 1994; Singh et al., 2015; Vidal-Salazar et al., 2012). Twelve green practices used in previous empirical studies were identified, with existing qualitative studies (e.g., de Sousa Jabbour, 2015) and questionnaire pretesting supporting their widespread use in Brazil. Managers were asked to use a five-point Likert scale to express the intensity of the implementation of each green practice. PCA extracted two factors—EPS and EPH—with eigenvalues exceeding 1.0 (explaining 42% and 29.3% of variance), with EPS including seven practices (e.g., “supplier selection with green criteria”), and EPH reflecting four practices (e.g., “green production process/technology”). The practice of “green disclosure” had loadings lower than 0.5 in both factors and was thus removed to enhance the overall statistical fit and quality (Chin, 1998) of both EPS and EPH during PCA. After applying PCA, the configuration of the EPS and EPH constructs was as follows. For EPS, environmental reports, green sponsor donations, supplier selection with green criteria, environmental policy, full-time employees for green issues, long-term green objectives, and planning for environmental emergencies were considered. The EPH construct included green marketing, green R&D/eco-design, green production processes/technology, and greener raw materials/source reduction.</td></tr><tr><td>Independent variable—stakeholder greening pressures</td><td>We used a unitary index based on six items (customers, government, shareholders, employees, civil society, and the media), an approach that has been validated in previous empirical studies (Murillo-Luna et al., 2008) and Sarkis et al., 2010). The items include the most relevant green pressure groups in Brazil (de Sousa Jabbour et al., 2017). Managers were asked to use a scale from 1 to 5 to express the perceived strength of each pressure. All the items were loaded into a single factor, explaining 63% of the variance.</td></tr><tr><td>Mediator variable—GHRM systems</td><td>Our mediator variable—GHRM—Was a unitary index extracted from four practices most often researched in empirical GHRM literature: Green training, green performance assessment, green rewards, and green teams to address environmental problems. Green recruitment was not included, as our focus is on practices that enhance the agency of existing intraorganizational actors. Managers were asked to indicate on a scale of 1 to 5 the level of support each practice received within their company. PCA extracted one factor with an eigenvalue greater than 1.0 (explaining 73% of the variance).</td></tr></tbody></table>

Abbreviations: EPH, environmental protection hardware; EPS, environmental protection software; GHRM, green human resource management; PCA, principal component analysis.

and websites of both the companies involved and the Brazilian financial and environmental authorities. This secondary data collection was intended to assemble supplementary data—including ISO 14001 certification—to triangulate reported environmental information and add financial variables (turnover). Two of the authors reviewed the companies' web pages and company-related media pieces to look for salient discrepancies within their information on environmental practices reported by respondents, and no significant discrepancies were found.

## 4.4 | Measures

The research model comprised four latent variables, assessed using a total of 21 items (see questionnaire and items in Appendix A). Reflective measures were used to build our main constructs (Murillo-Luna et al., 2008; Singh et al., 2015), and principal component analysis (PCA) with varimax rotation was applied to the multi-item scales to extract factors representing latent variables. The dependent variables were named EPS and EPH, the independent variable was named stakeholder greening pressures (STK), and the mediating variable was called GHRM systems. Table 2 systematizes the measures and scales for each construct and control variable of this study.

Cronbach's alpha and composite reliability values exceeded the .80 and .70 benchmarks in each case (Hox et al., 2010); see Table 3 for intercorrelations among constructs and reliability. Appendix B presents further detailed correlations after mean centering.

## 4.5 | Analysis

Structural equation modeling (SEM) was conducted using the partial least squares (PLS) technique, which permits a string of measurable variables or items to be directly or indirectly connected with the latent variables or factors (Hox et al., 2010). The sample exceeds the minimum recommended level according to the widely used “10-times rule,” which suggests that the sample size should be more than 10 times the number of links reaching any latent variable in the model. Although the 10-times rule has at times been shown to lead to inaccurate estimates, the use of statistical power analysis tools (G*Power) and application of the inverse square root method (Kock & Hadaya, 2018) gave reassurance that a sample of 106 provided a model with a statistical power of .8.

Preacher and Hayes's method for testing mediation was followed, as previously adapted for use with PLS by Hair et al. (2016). A PLS model is analyzed and interpreted sequentially in two stages (Hox
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

<table><caption>TABLE 2 Details on the development of scales</caption><thead><tr><td>Construct</td><td>Development</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Dependent variables—EPS and EPH</td><td>We carried out an exhaustive review of green practices in organizations and in the natural environment literature, focusing on practices used in previous empirical studies which were repeatedly observed across a range of manufacturing and primary industries (Buysse & Verbeke, 2003; González-Benito & González-Benito, 2006; Peattie & Ringer, 1994; Singh et al., 2015; Vidal-Salazar et al., 2012). Twelve green practices used in previous empirical studies were identified, with existing qualitative studies (e.g., de Sousa Jabbour, 2015) and questionnaire pretesting supporting their widespread use in Brazil. Managers were asked to use a five-point Likert scale to express the intensity of the implementation of each green practice. PCA extracted two factors—EPS and EPH—with eigenvalues exceeding 1.0 (explaining 42% and 29.3% of variance), with EPS including seven practices (e.g., “supplier selection with green criteria”), and EPH reflecting four practices (e.g., “green production process/technology”). The practice of “green disclosure” had loadings lower than 0.5 in both factors and was thus removed to enhance the overall statistical fit and quality (Chin, 1998) of both EPS and EPH during PCA. After applying PCA, the configuration of the EPS and EPH constructs was as follows. For EPS, environmental reports, green sponsor donations, supplier selection with green criteria, environmental policy, full-time employees for green issues, long-term green objectives, and planning for environmental emergencies were considered. The EPH construct included green marketing, green R&D/eco-design, green production processes/technology, and greener raw materials/source reduction.</td></tr><tr><td>Independent variable—stakeholder greening pressures</td><td>We used a unitary index based on six items (customers, government, shareholders, employees, civil society, and the media), an approach that has been validated in previous empirical studies (Murillo-Luna et al., 2008) and Sarkis et al., 2010). The items include the most relevant green pressure groups in Brazil (de Sousa Jabbour et al., 2017). Managers were asked to use a scale from 1 to 5 to express the perceived strength of each pressure. All the items were loaded into a single factor, explaining 63% of the variance.</td></tr><tr><td>Mediator variable—GHRM systems</td><td>Our mediator variable—GHRM—Was a unitary index extracted from four practices most often researched in empirical GHRM literature: Green training, green performance assessment, green rewards, and green teams to address environmental problems. Green recruitment was not included, as our focus is on practices that enhance the agency of existing intraorganizational actors. Managers were asked to indicate on a scale of 1 to 5 the level of support each practice received within their company. PCA extracted one factor with an eigenvalue greater than 1.0 (explaining 73% of the variance).</td></tr></tbody></table>

Abbreviations: EPH, environmental protection hardware; EPS, environmental protection software; GHRM, green human resource management; PCA, principal component analysis.

and websites of both the companies involved and the Brazilian financial and environmental authorities. This secondary data collection was intended to assemble supplementary data—including ISO 14001 certification—to triangulate reported environmental information and add financial variables (turnover). Two of the authors reviewed the companies' web pages and company-related media pieces to look for salient discrepancies within their information on environmental practices reported by respondents, and no significant discrepancies were found.

## 4.4 | Measures

The research model comprised four latent variables, assessed using a total of 21 items (see questionnaire and items in Appendix A). Reflective measures were used to build our main constructs (Murillo-Luna et al., 2008; Singh et al., 2015), and principal component analysis (PCA) with varimax rotation was applied to the multi-item scales to extract factors representing latent variables. The dependent variables were named EPS and EPH, the independent variable was named stakeholder greening pressures (STK), and the mediating variable was called GHRM systems. Table 2 systematizes the measures and scales for each construct and control variable of this study.

Cronbach's alpha and composite reliability values exceeded the .80 and .70 benchmarks in each case (Hox et al., 2010); see Table 3 for intercorrelations among constructs and reliability. Appendix B presents further detailed correlations after mean centering.

## 4.5 | Analysis

Structural equation modeling (SEM) was conducted using the partial least squares (PLS) technique, which permits a string of measurable variables or items to be directly or indirectly connected with the latent variables or factors (Hox et al., 2010). The sample exceeds the minimum recommended level according to the widely used “10-times rule,” which suggests that the sample size should be more than 10 times the number of links reaching any latent variable in the model. Although the 10-times rule has at times been shown to lead to inaccurate estimates, the use of statistical power analysis tools (G*Power) and application of the inverse square root method (Kock & Hadaya, 2018) gave reassurance that a sample of 106 provided a model with a statistical power of .8.

Preacher and Hayes's method for testing mediation was followed, as previously adapted for use with PLS by Hair et al. (2016). A PLS model is analyzed and interpreted sequentially in two stages (Hox
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

<table><caption>TABLE 3 Construct reliability</caption><thead><tr><th>Construct</th><th>Composite reliability</th><th>Cronbach's alpha</th><th>1</th><th>2</th><th>3</th><th>4</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Environmental protection “hardware” (EPH)<br>“Green technologies, operations and competencies”</td><td>.85</td><td>.77</td><td>.72</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Environmental protection “software” (EPS)<br>“Green planning, strategy, and systems”</td><td>.94</td><td>.92</td><td>.64</td><td>.79</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Green human resource management system (GHRM)<br>“Integrated set of green training, reward, assessment and<br>teamwork HR practices”</td><td>.82</td><td>.70</td><td>.60</td><td>.55</td><td>.74</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Stakeholder greening pressures</td><td>.84</td><td>.76</td><td>.44</td><td>.43</td><td>.54</td><td>.71</td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>FIGURE 2 Direct model</figcaption></figure>

*p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.001
(Two tailed t-Student distribution with 499 degrees of freedom)

et al., 2010). Bootstrapping resampling was used with 5000 subsamples. The amplitude of the mediation effect was assessed with the variance accounted for (VAF), which measures the size of the indirect mediating effect in relation to the total effect (Hair et al., 2016). This approach to quantifying mediating effects offered richer information on the strength of mediation than a full/partial mediation dichotomous distinction.

The hypotheses proposed would be supported if the mediator SEM shows a) significant effects of stakeholder pressures on GHRM (H1); b) significant effects of GHRM on EPS and EPH (H2 and H3); and c) reduced, insignificant effects of stakeholder pressures on EPS and EPH compared with the direct effects model (H4 and H5). The occurrence of the full mediation proposed in H4 and H5 would be confirmed if the VAF result was above 80%; for a VAF result between 20% and 80%, the mediation is partial (Hair et al., 2016). H6 would be supported if the VAF of the mediating effect of GHRM on EPH is higher than that of GHRM on EPS.

## 5 | RESULTS

To assess discriminant validity, it was verified that the average variance extracted (AVE) exceeded 0.50 and that the Fornell-Larcker criterion was satisfied, as the square root of the AVE for the reflective constructs was greater than the correlation between constructs. Therefore, SEMs can correctly explain the covariances of the sample (Hair et al., 2016).

Model 1 (Figure 2) presents the direct effects identified. It is shown that stakeholder green pressures influence the implementation of EPS and EPH (p < .001; $\beta$ = .39; $\beta$ = .46).

Model 2 (Figure 3) presents the GHRM system mediation effect. Stakeholder environmental pressures are shown to strongly influence the mediator (p < .001; $\beta$ = .54), thus supporting H1. In turn, the mediator strongly influences the implementation of EPS and EPH (p < .01; $\beta$ = .34; $\beta$ = .47, respectively). Therefore, H2 and H3 are also supported.
<table><caption>TABLE 3 Construct reliability</caption><thead><tr><th>Construct</th><th>Composite reliability</th><th>Cronbach's alpha</th><th>1</th><th>2</th><th>3</th><th>4</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Environmental protection “hardware” (EPH)<br>“Green technologies, operations and competencies”</td><td>.85</td><td>.77</td><td>.72</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Environmental protection “software” (EPS)<br>“Green planning, strategy, and systems”</td><td>.94</td><td>.92</td><td>.64</td><td>.79</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Green human resource management system (GHRM)<br>“Integrated set of green training, reward, assessment and<br>teamwork HR practices”</td><td>.82</td><td>.70</td><td>.60</td><td>.55</td><td>.74</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Stakeholder greening pressures</td><td>.84</td><td>.76</td><td>.44</td><td>.43</td><td>.54</td><td>.71</td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>FIGURE 2 Direct model</figcaption></figure>

et al., 2010). Bootstrapping resampling was used with 5000 subsamples. The amplitude of the mediation effect was assessed with the variance accounted for (VAF), which measures the size of the indirect mediating effect in relation to the total effect (Hair et al., 2016). This approach to quantifying mediating effects offered richer information on the strength of mediation than a full/partial mediation dichotomous distinction.

The hypotheses proposed would be supported if the mediator SEM shows a) significant effects of stakeholder pressures on GHRM (H1); b) significant effects of GHRM on EPS and EPH (H2 and H3); and c) reduced, insignificant effects of stakeholder pressures on EPS and EPH compared with the direct effects model (H4 and H5). The occurrence of the full mediation proposed in H4 and H5 would be confirmed if the VAF result was above 80%; for a VAF result between 20% and 80%, the mediation is partial (Hair et al., 2016). H6 would be supported if the VAF of the mediating effect of GHRM on EPH is higher than that of GHRM on EPS.

## 5 | RESULTS

To assess discriminant validity, it was verified that the average variance extracted (AVE) exceeded 0.50 and that the Fornell-Larcker criterion was satisfied, as the square root of the AVE for the reflective constructs was greater than the correlation between constructs. Therefore, SEMs can correctly explain the covariances of the sample (Hair et al., 2016).

Model 1 (Figure 2) presents the direct effects identified. It is shown that stakeholder green pressures influence the implementation of EPS and EPH ($p < .001$; $\beta = .39$; $\beta = .46$).

Model 2 (Figure 3) presents the GHRM system mediation effect. Stakeholder environmental pressures are shown to strongly influence the mediator ($p < .001$; $\beta = .54$), thus supporting H1. In turn, the mediator strongly influences the implementation of EPS and EPH ($p < .01$; $\beta = .34$; $\beta = .47$, respectively). Therefore, H2 and H3 are also supported.
<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>TABLE 4 Global quality criteria</figcaption></figure>

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>Average variance extracted</th><th>R-squared</th><th>Q2 = cross-validated redundancy</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>Direct model</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Environmental protection “software” (EPS)</td><td>0.62</td><td>0.28</td><td>0.22</td></tr><tr><td>Environmental protection “hardware” (EPH)</td><td>0.51</td><td>0.41</td><td>0.10</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Mediator model</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Green human resource management system (GHRM)</td><td>0.55</td><td>0.29</td><td>0.10</td></tr><tr><td>Environmental protection “software” (EPS)</td><td>0.62</td><td>0.49</td><td>0.27</td></tr><tr><td>Environmental protection “hardware” (EPH)</td><td>0.52</td><td>0.41</td><td>0.17</td></tr></tbody></table>

The influence of stakeholder green pressures on EPS and EPH is reduced when compared with the direct effects and is no longer significant, supporting a mediation effect. The VAF values confirm substantial mediation effects of GHRM for EPS (51.75%) and larger effects for EPH (62.87%). Therefore, H4 and H5 are supported, but mediation was partial (as the VAF was less than 80%). These results also support H6, which proposed that GHRM systems would have a higher mediating effect on EPH than on EPS.

Three control variables—firm size, turnover, and ISO 9001—positively influenced the implementation of EPS practices but were not significant concerning EPH.

As shown in Table 4, the predictive power of our model is strong, as R-squared amply exceeded the threshold of 0.1 and cross-validated redundancy (Q2) had positive values for all the endogenous constructs of EPH, EPS, and GHRM systems (Hox et al., 2010).

Finally, we repeated the mediation analysis with each GHRM practice separately. The individual mediation effects of green training,

assessment, rewards, and teamwork were tested one by one in the relationships between stakeholder pressures, EPH practices, and EPS practices (Table 5).

As expected, GHRM practices have less of a mediating impact when considered individually because there is no reinforcing system effect.

As a robustness check of the model, the advice of Podsakoff et al. (2012) was followed on remedies for common method concerns. The dependent variables EPS and EPH were replaced with a variable obtained from external sources, ISO 14001, as a proxy for the development of environmental practices (Montabon et al., 2000). The analysis shows consistency with our previous model in the relationship between stakeholder pressures and GHRM and between GHRM and ISO 14001 implementation ($p < .000; \beta = .608; \beta = .577$, respectively). These results indicate that social desirability and CMB are not an issue in this case (Roxas & Lindsay, 2012).
<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>TABLE 4 Global quality criteria</figcaption></figure>

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>Average variance extracted</th><th>R-squared</th><th>Q2 = cross-validated redundancy</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>Direct model</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Environmental protection “software” (EPS)</td><td>0.62</td><td>0.28</td><td>0.22</td></tr><tr><td>Environmental protection “hardware” (EPH)</td><td>0.51</td><td>0.41</td><td>0.10</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Mediator model</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Green human resource management system (GHRM)</td><td>0.55</td><td>0.29</td><td>0.10</td></tr><tr><td>Environmental protection “software” (EPS)</td><td>0.62</td><td>0.49</td><td>0.27</td></tr><tr><td>Environmental protection “hardware” (EPH)</td><td>0.52</td><td>0.41</td><td>0.17</td></tr></tbody></table>

The influence of stakeholder green pressures on EPS and EPH is reduced when compared with the direct effects and is no longer significant, supporting a mediation effect. The VAF values confirm substantial mediation effects of GHRM for EPS (51.75%) and larger effects for EPH (62.87%). Therefore, H4 and H5 are supported, but mediation was partial (as the VAF was less than 80%). These results also support H6, which proposed that GHRM systems would have a higher mediating effect on EPH than on EPS.

Three control variables—firm size, turnover, and ISO 9001—positively influenced the implementation of EPS practices but were not significant concerning EPH.

As shown in Table 4, the predictive power of our model is strong, as R-squared amply exceeded the threshold of 0.1 and cross-validated redundancy (Q2) had positive values for all the endogenous constructs of EPH, EPS, and GHRM systems (Hox et al., 2010).

Finally, we repeated the mediation analysis with each GHRM practice separately. The individual mediation effects of green training,

assessment, rewards, and teamwork were tested one by one in the relationships between stakeholder pressures, EPH practices, and EPS practices (Table 5).

As expected, GHRM practices have less of a mediating impact when considered individually because there is no reinforcing system effect.

As a robustness check of the model, the advice of Podsakoff et al. (2012) was followed on remedies for common method concerns. The dependent variables EPS and EPH were replaced with a variable obtained from external sources, ISO 14001, as a proxy for the development of environmental practices (Montabon et al., 2000). The analysis shows consistency with our previous model in the relationship between stakeholder pressures and GHRM and between GHRM and ISO 14001 implementation ($p < .000; \beta = .608; \beta = .577$, respectively). These results indicate that social desirability and CMB are not an issue in this case (Roxas & Lindsay, 2012).
<table><caption>TABLE 5 Mediation effects of individual green HRM practices</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2"></th><th colspan="2">Mediation effects</th></tr><tr><th>Environmental protection software (EPS)</th><th>Environmental protection hardware (EPH)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Green training</td><td>PARTIAL</td><td>NONE</td></tr><tr><td>Green performance assessment</td><td>NONE</td><td>PARTIAL</td></tr><tr><td>Green rewards</td><td>NONE</td><td>NONE</td></tr><tr><td>Green teamwork</td><td>PARTIAL</td><td>NONE</td></tr></tbody></table>

## 6 | DISCUSSION

The results show that higher levels of stakeholder greening pressures result in an increase in the intensity of EPS and EPH implementation and that such pressures are mediated by GHRM systems, where opportunity- and fairness-enhancing practices weigh heavily. It is important to highlight that the model purposely tested the mediation effects of GHRM on both EPS and EPH to verify if the hypothesis that GHRM will mediate EPH more intensely than EPS can be considered correct. By accounting for both practices in the same model, we found that, as expected, the implementation of EPH requires more mediation from GHRM to solve stakeholder agency issues than the implementation of EPS does. The theoretical interpretation is that human problems affecting the response to stakeholder pressures may be more salient concerning EPH.

### 6.1 | Implications for research

The findings and conceptual underpinnings of the paper have important implications for existing research on corporate sustainability strategies. Starting with the control variables, the finding that size, ISO 9001, and turnover positively influence EPS but do not improve EPH supports the contention by Shevchenko et al. (2016) that larger and more resourceful firms that have certification standards implement more green policies and planning but are no better than smaller firms in terms of introducing new technologies or greening their core organizational functions.

The limited extent to which many large organizations strategically use the HR function to enact a system of GHRM practices focused on increasing pro-environmental behavior—as observed in the UK by Zibarras and Coan (2015)—may result in unresolved human problems that can explain why green pressures and implementation are misaligned. Opting not to make full use of GHRM can hamper the scaling up of sustainability management in organizations, which constitutes an extension of the debate on the role of stakeholder engagement in scaling up sustainability transitions (Goworek et al., 2018). Our proposed connection between human problems, GHRM, stakeholder pressures, and EPS/EPH practices expands stakeholder theory and

contributes to calls for more research into how stakeholder theory can improve management practices (Freeman et al., 2017).

The results also have implications for future research arguing for the necessity of using GHRM systems as a unit of analysis when studying the influence of GHRM practices on organizational outcomes (Bello-Pintado, 2015). Analyzing the impact of each GHRM practice individually resulted in lower mediation effects in both EPS and EPH, thus affirming the reinforcing effect of GHRM systems proposed by Jackson et al. (2014). The rewards seen did not have significant mediating effects individually, while assessment did, thus upholding our contention that fairness-enhancing practices may overlap with, but are not fully subsumed within, motivation-enhancing practices.

Green teamwork and green assessment displayed the highest loading values in our mediator variable. This is consistent with GHRM research, which highlights green opportunity-enhancing practices as predictors of green performance (Chuang et al., 2016; Daily & Huang, 2001; Gupta, 2018). Real-world examples of successful green management programs highlight the important role of performance assessment (Kim, 2016) in unlocking employees' green abilities and motivation and the role of teamwork in providing fair opportunities for the entire workforce to be part of green innovation processes (Chuang et al., 2016). The importance of these GHRM practices resonates with specific features of the Brazilian institutional milieu. Teamwork relates to Brazil's soft power orientation, which favors the resolution of trade-offs through diplomacy, collaboration and persuasion, bridge building, and inclusive forms of governance (Chatin, 2016; Stuenkel, 2016). Assessment systems are crucial in the Brazilian context of structural inequality, where unaddressed perceptions of unfairness can trigger violence and escalate negative reciprocity (Rojas, 2012) and suggest a need for further studies in the field of corporate sustainability in developing countries using the lens of AMO.

One unexpected result was that the mediating effect of GHRM is partial, as it was seen that in addition to their mediating effect through GHRM systems, stakeholder greening pressures also influence the implementation of EPH and EPS directly. One explanation here may be that environmental concerns have long been embedded in education systems and the mass media in Brazil, and as a result, many managers are intrinsically motivated by ingrained environmental values and endowed with green knowledge (Silva et al., 2017). Furthermore, Brazilian firms tend to develop strong relationship-based business networks (Fleury & Fleury, 2011). Akhtar and Sarmah (2018) observe that involvement with relationship-based networks not only increases corporate capabilities to integrate stakeholder concerns but also positively relates to environmental sustainability.

Environmentally conscious agents in Brazil are thus likely to leverage external governance mechanisms (e.g., stakeholder pressures) and use them directly as opportunities to overcome internal resistance to the implementation of green practices (Buhl et al., 2016), as they may feel that strong GHRM systems are invasive and curtail their autonomy. This can be referred to as “crowding out,” where an excessive alignment mechanism can subvert the intrinsic motivation to behave ethically (Shi et al., 2017). Another complementary interpretation is that organizations in Brazil may be responding to mounting
<table><caption>TABLE 5 Mediation effects of individual green HRM practices</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2"></th><th colspan="2">Mediation effects</th></tr><tr><th>Environmental protection software (EPS)</th><th>Environmental protection hardware (EPH)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Green training</td><td>PARTIAL</td><td>NONE</td></tr><tr><td>Green performance assessment</td><td>NONE</td><td>PARTIAL</td></tr><tr><td>Green rewards</td><td>NONE</td><td>NONE</td></tr><tr><td>Green teamwork</td><td>PARTIAL</td><td>NONE</td></tr></tbody></table>

## 6 | DISCUSSION

The results show that higher levels of stakeholder greening pressures result in an increase in the intensity of EPS and EPH implementation and that such pressures are mediated by GHRM systems, where opportunity- and fairness-enhancing practices weigh heavily. It is important to highlight that the model purposely tested the mediation effects of GHRM on both EPS and EPH to verify if the hypothesis that GHRM will mediate EPH more intensely than EPS can be considered correct. By accounting for both practices in the same model, we found that, as expected, the implementation of EPH requires more mediation from GHRM to solve stakeholder agency issues than the implementation of EPS does. The theoretical interpretation is that human problems affecting the response to stakeholder pressures may be more salient concerning EPH.

### 6.1 | Implications for research

The findings and conceptual underpinnings of the paper have important implications for existing research on corporate sustainability strategies. Starting with the control variables, the finding that size, ISO 9001, and turnover positively influence EPS but do not improve EPH supports the contention by Shevchenko et al. (2016) that larger and more resourceful firms that have certification standards implement more green policies and planning but are no better than smaller firms in terms of introducing new technologies or greening their core organizational functions.

The limited extent to which many large organizations strategically use the HR function to enact a system of GHRM practices focused on increasing pro-environmental behavior—as observed in the UK by Zibarras and Coan (2015)—may result in unresolved human problems that can explain why green pressures and implementation are misaligned. Opting not to make full use of GHRM can hamper the scaling up of sustainability management in organizations, which constitutes an extension of the debate on the role of stakeholder engagement in scaling up sustainability transitions (Goworek et al., 2018). Our proposed connection between human problems, GHRM, stakeholder pressures, and EPS/EPH practices expands stakeholder theory and

contributes to calls for more research into how stakeholder theory can improve management practices (Freeman et al., 2017).

The results also have implications for future research arguing for the necessity of using GHRM systems as a unit of analysis when studying the influence of GHRM practices on organizational outcomes (Bello-Pintado, 2015). Analyzing the impact of each GHRM practice individually resulted in lower mediation effects in both EPS and EPH, thus affirming the reinforcing effect of GHRM systems proposed by Jackson et al. (2014). The rewards seen did not have significant mediating effects individually, while assessment did, thus upholding our contention that fairness-enhancing practices may overlap with, but are not fully subsumed within, motivation-enhancing practices.

Green teamwork and green assessment displayed the highest loading values in our mediator variable. This is consistent with GHRM research, which highlights green opportunity-enhancing practices as predictors of green performance (Chuang et al., 2016; Daily & Huang, 2001; Gupta, 2018). Real-world examples of successful green management programs highlight the important role of performance assessment (Kim, 2016) in unlocking employees' green abilities and motivation and the role of teamwork in providing fair opportunities for the entire workforce to be part of green innovation processes (Chuang et al., 2016). The importance of these GHRM practices resonates with specific features of the Brazilian institutional milieu. Teamwork relates to Brazil's soft power orientation, which favors the resolution of trade-offs through diplomacy, collaboration and persuasion, bridge building, and inclusive forms of governance (Chatin, 2016; Stuenkel, 2016). Assessment systems are crucial in the Brazilian context of structural inequality, where unaddressed perceptions of unfairness can trigger violence and escalate negative reciprocity (Rojas, 2012) and suggest a need for further studies in the field of corporate sustainability in developing countries using the lens of AMO.

One unexpected result was that the mediating effect of GHRM is partial, as it was seen that in addition to their mediating effect through GHRM systems, stakeholder greening pressures also influence the implementation of EPH and EPS directly. One explanation here may be that environmental concerns have long been embedded in education systems and the mass media in Brazil, and as a result, many managers are intrinsically motivated by ingrained environmental values and endowed with green knowledge (Silva et al., 2017). Furthermore, Brazilian firms tend to develop strong relationship-based business networks (Fleury & Fleury, 2011). Akhtar and Sarmah (2018) observe that involvement with relationship-based networks not only increases corporate capabilities to integrate stakeholder concerns but also positively relates to environmental sustainability.

Environmentally conscious agents in Brazil are thus likely to leverage external governance mechanisms (e.g., stakeholder pressures) and use them directly as opportunities to overcome internal resistance to the implementation of green practices (Buhl et al., 2016), as they may feel that strong GHRM systems are invasive and curtail their autonomy. This can be referred to as “crowding out,” where an excessive alignment mechanism can subvert the intrinsic motivation to behave ethically (Shi et al., 2017). Another complementary interpretation is that organizations in Brazil may be responding to mounting
<figure><img src="image_8.png" /></figure>

stakeholder greening pressures using both internal and external resource markets: subcontracting the implementation of green practices, recruiting new staff with intensive environmental knowledge, hiring green consultants, or outsourcing the design of environmental products and processes (Delmas, 2001).

The results show similar overall levels of EPS and EPH implementation but a stronger mediating effect of GHRM systems on EPH than on EPS. This is consistent with research proposing that EPH tends to require many more firm resources and is riskier during implementation than EPS (Berrone & Gomez-Mejia, 2009b; Bromley & Powell, 2012).

## 6.2 | Implications for policy and practice

The key implication for policy and practice is that organizations experiencing pro-environmental stakeholder pressures will be able to respond with a balanced portfolio of EPS and EPH when they have GHRM systems that combine training, rewards, appraisals, and teamwork. The results show a strong mediating role of GHRM in EPH implementation and suggest that GHRM corrects human problems that would otherwise lead to the implementation of EPS at the expense of EPH.

To the extent of our knowledge, this is the first study investigating the mediating role of GHRM practices in the context of an emerging market economy: Brazil, a country with active pro-environmental stakeholders and institutional support for GHRM implementation. The results are of interest to countries experiencing greening pressures but lower levels of GHRM implementation. The correspondence between Brazilian policy traits (i.e., soft power orientation) and the weight of specific GHRM practices suggests that more research is needed to capture the influence of different policy contexts on the mediating role played by GHRM.

## 7 | CONCLUSIONS

The findings show that GHRM systems partially mediated the association between stakeholder pressures, EPS, and EPH (with the mediation effect being stronger in the latter) in Brazilian organizations, therefore revealing the strength of GHRM systems as a crucial factor in explaining the intensity of the implementation of green practices in response to stakeholder environmental pressures. In doing so, the study contributes to different branches of management research.

### 7.1 | Academic contributions

First, the study adds to business strategy and the environment research that examines the drivers of corporate environmental strategies and practices in response to environmental challenges. Here, the theoretical framework expands previous insights into the role of stakeholder pressures (e.g., Elia et al., 2020; de Sousa Jabbour et al., 2020) and human resources (Chaudhary, 2020; Cop et al., 2020;

Yong et al., 2020; Wolf, 2013) to explain the extent of corporate responses to stakeholder environmental pressures through a range of human problems affecting the full and continued implementation of EPS and EPH, as well as the mediating role of GHRM systems with higher effects on EPH than on EPS. The framework adds nuance and depth to the ongoing collective construction of a systematic theory of corporate sustainability as envisaged by Dylick and Hockerts (2002).

Second, the findings contribute to the AMO framework by delineating conceptual relations between stakeholder pressures, HRM practices, and AMO problems while highlighting the role of fairness-enhancing and experience-sharing practices. The framework thus responds to calls by Pepper and Gore (2015) to theorize how ability-and opportunity-enhancing practices relate to corporate performance. In doing so, the paper responds to calls urging that a system-based perspective be embedded in GHRM research (Guerci & Carollo, 2016; Tang et al., 2018) by reinforcing the view that GHRM practices enhancing ability, motivation, fairness, and opportunity need to be implemented as a system and in further identifying the role of fairness-enhancing practices in it.

### 7.2 | Limitations

Potential limitations to the study include its cross-sectional sample and relatively older data. Regarding the latter, the study follows established and accepted standards in leading business journals, which re-examined 8- to 12-year-old data (e.g., Dick, 2005, Yakovleva & Vazquez-Brust, 2018; Reinecke & Ansari, 2021). We re-examined our prior data herein, as, like these authors, we were also “attempting to understand why and how” (Dick, 2005, p.1375) our findings appeared so, as we were absorbed and captivated by them.

As individual GHRM practices were measured with single items, future research may wish to contrast our results using multi-item indicators for each practice (e.g., Tang et al., 2018), and because information was not collected on recruitment, job specification, subcontracting, or agents' environmental values, further research compiling such data could investigate whether these practices introduce synergies or trade-offs. “Employees” were considered a stakeholder group while using GHRM as a mediator; whether this approach might create undesirable statistical effects deserves further conceptual discussion.

Additionally, we encourage scholars to investigate other mediating variables while bringing different theoretical perspectives to expand or challenge our framework (i.e., neo-institutional theory, paradoxes, and/or translation approaches). The scope of research can be expanded by adding social and economic practices and exploring the role that GHRM can play in improving ecological equity and socioeffectiveness (Dyllick & Hockerts, 2002). Finally, exploring nonlinear relationships could bring a more nuanced understanding. The value of this approach can be seen in Xie et al. (2022), where a U-shaped relationship explained away variations in the relation between green innovation and financial performance. Future research could explore nonlinear relationships between stakeholder pressures, GHRM, and implementation; for instance, a certain level of pressure may be
<figure><img src="image_8.png" /></figure>

stakeholder greening pressures using both internal and external resource markets: subcontracting the implementation of green practices, recruiting new staff with intensive environmental knowledge, hiring green consultants, or outsourcing the design of environmental products and processes (Delmas, 2001).

The results show similar overall levels of EPS and EPH implementation but a stronger mediating effect of GHRM systems on EPH than on EPS. This is consistent with research proposing that EPH tends to require many more firm resources and is riskier during implementation than EPS (Berrone & Gomez-Mejia, 2009b; Bromley & Powell, 2012).

## 6.2 | Implications for policy and practice

The key implication for policy and practice is that organizations experiencing pro-environmental stakeholder pressures will be able to respond with a balanced portfolio of EPS and EPH when they have GHRM systems that combine training, rewards, appraisals, and teamwork. The results show a strong mediating role of GHRM in EPH implementation and suggest that GHRM corrects human problems that would otherwise lead to the implementation of EPS at the expense of EPH.

To the extent of our knowledge, this is the first study investigating the mediating role of GHRM practices in the context of an emerging market economy: Brazil, a country with active pro-environmental stakeholders and institutional support for GHRM implementation. The results are of interest to countries experiencing greening pressures but lower levels of GHRM implementation. The correspondence between Brazilian policy traits (i.e., soft power orientation) and the weight of specific GHRM practices suggests that more research is needed to capture the influence of different policy contexts on the mediating role played by GHRM.

## 7 | CONCLUSIONS

The findings show that GHRM systems partially mediated the association between stakeholder pressures, EPS, and EPH (with the mediation effect being stronger in the latter) in Brazilian organizations, therefore revealing the strength of GHRM systems as a crucial factor in explaining the intensity of the implementation of green practices in response to stakeholder environmental pressures. In doing so, the study contributes to different branches of management research.

### 7.1 | Academic contributions

First, the study adds to business strategy and the environment research that examines the drivers of corporate environmental strategies and practices in response to environmental challenges. Here, the theoretical framework expands previous insights into the role of stakeholder pressures (e.g., Elia et al., 2020; de Sousa Jabbour et al., 2020) and human resources (Chaudhary, 2020; Cop et al., 2020;

Yong et al., 2020; Wolf, 2013) to explain the extent of corporate responses to stakeholder environmental pressures through a range of human problems affecting the full and continued implementation of EPS and EPH, as well as the mediating role of GHRM systems with higher effects on EPH than on EPS. The framework adds nuance and depth to the ongoing collective construction of a systematic theory of corporate sustainability as envisaged by Dylick and Hockerts (2002).

Second, the findings contribute to the AMO framework by delineating conceptual relations between stakeholder pressures, HRM practices, and AMO problems while highlighting the role of fairness-enhancing and experience-sharing practices. The framework thus responds to calls by Pepper and Gore (2015) to theorize how ability-and opportunity-enhancing practices relate to corporate performance. In doing so, the paper responds to calls urging that a system-based perspective be embedded in GHRM research (Guerci & Carollo, 2016; Tang et al., 2018) by reinforcing the view that GHRM practices enhancing ability, motivation, fairness, and opportunity need to be implemented as a system and in further identifying the role of fairness-enhancing practices in it.

### 7.2 | Limitations

Potential limitations to the study include its cross-sectional sample and relatively older data. Regarding the latter, the study follows established and accepted standards in leading business journals, which re-examined 8- to 12-year-old data (e.g., Dick, 2005, Yakovleva & Vazquez-Brust, 2018; Reinecke & Ansari, 2021). We re-examined our prior data herein, as, like these authors, we were also “attempting to understand why and how” (Dick, 2005, p.1375) our findings appeared so, as we were absorbed and captivated by them.

As individual GHRM practices were measured with single items, future research may wish to contrast our results using multi-item indicators for each practice (e.g., Tang et al., 2018), and because information was not collected on recruitment, job specification, subcontracting, or agents' environmental values, further research compiling such data could investigate whether these practices introduce synergies or trade-offs. “Employees” were considered a stakeholder group while using GHRM as a mediator; whether this approach might create undesirable statistical effects deserves further conceptual discussion.

Additionally, we encourage scholars to investigate other mediating variables while bringing different theoretical perspectives to expand or challenge our framework (i.e., neo-institutional theory, paradoxes, and/or translation approaches). The scope of research can be expanded by adding social and economic practices and exploring the role that GHRM can play in improving ecological equity and socioeffectiveness (Dyllick & Hockerts, 2002). Finally, exploring nonlinear relationships could bring a more nuanced understanding. The value of this approach can be seen in Xie et al. (2022), where a U-shaped relationship explained away variations in the relation between green innovation and financial performance. Future research could explore nonlinear relationships between stakeholder pressures, GHRM, and implementation; for instance, a certain level of pressure may be
<figure><img src="image_9.png" /></figure>

needed to activate GHRM and increased GHRM implementation may have diminishing impacts on performance if voluntary initiatives start being crowded out by corporate systems after a certain level.

## ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors gratefully acknowledge support from the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation, Agencia Nacional de Investigación-AEI, and the European Regional Development Fund-ERDF/FEDER-UE: R&D Projects PID2020-119663GB-IO0 and UAL2020-SEJ-D1872.

## ORCID

Diego Vázquez-Brust https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0852-5912

Charbel Jose Chiappetta Jabbour https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6143-4924

José Antonio Plaza-Úbeda https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5837-2515

Ana Beatriz Lopes de Sousa Jabbour https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6423-8868

## REFERENCES

Adomako, S., & Nguyen, N. P. (2020). Human resource slack, sustainable innovation, and environmental performance of small and medium-sized enterprises in sub-Saharan Africa. *Business Strategy and the Environment, 29*(8), 2984-2994. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2552

Akhtar, A., & Sarmah, A. K. (2018). Construction and demolition waste generation and properties of recycled aggregate concrete: A global perspective. *Journal of Cleaner Production, 186*, 262-281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.085

Alon, I., Lattemann, C., Fetscherin, M., Li, S., & Schneider, A. M. (2010). Usage of public corporate communications of social responsibility in Brazil, Russia, India, and China (BRIC). *International Journal of Emerging Markets*, 5, 6-22. https://doi.org/10.1108/17468801011018248

Andersson, S., Svensson, G., Otero-Neira, C., Laurell, H., Lindgren, J., & Karlsson, N. P. (2022). Sustainable development considerations in supply chains: Firms' relationships with stakeholders in their business sustainability practices—A triangular comparison. *Business Strategy and the Environment*, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3225

Applebaum, E., Bailey, P., Berg, P., Kalleberg, A. L., & Bailey, T. A. (2000). *Manufacturing advantage: Why high-performance work systems pay off*. Cornell University Press.

Bahuguna, P. C., Srivastava, R., & Tiwari, S. (2022). Two-decade journey of green human resource management research: A bibliometric analysis. *Benchmarking: An International Journal*. ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-10-2021-0619

Bello-Pintado, A. (2015). Bundles of HRM practices and performance: Empirical evidence from a Latin American context. *Human Resource Management Journal, 25*(3), 311-330. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12067

Berrone, P., & Gomez-Mejia, L. R. (2009a). Environmental performance and executive compensation: An integrated agency-institutional perspective. *Academy of Management Journal, 52*(1), 103-126. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009.36461950

Berrone, P., & Gomez-Mejia, L. R. (2009b). The pros and cons of rewarding social responsibility at the top. *Human Resource Management, 48*(6), 959-971. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.20324

Bhatia, M. S., & Kumar, S. (2022). Linking stakeholder and competitive pressure to industry 4.0 and performance: Mediating effect of environmental commitment and green process innovation. *Business Strategy and the Environment*, 31(5), 1905-1918. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2989

BM&FBOVESPA. (2019) Corporate sustainability index (ISE). Available at: http://www.bmfbovespa.com.br/en_us/products/indices/sustainability-indices/corporate-sustainability-index-ise.htm

Boselie, P., Dietz, G., & Boon, C. (2005). Commonalities and contradictions in HRM and performance research. *Human Resource Management Journal, 15*(3), 67-94. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-8583.2005.tb00154.x

Bosse, D. A., & Phillips, R. A. (2016). Agency theory and bounded self-interest. *Academy of Management Review, 41*(2), 276-297. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2013.0420

Bromley, P., & Powell, W. (2012). From smoke & mirrors to walking the talk: Decoupling in the contemporary world. *Academy of Management Annals, 6*(1), 483-530. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2012.684462

Buhl, A., Blazejewski, S., & Dittmer, F. (2016). The more, the merrier: Why and how employee-driven eco-innovation enhances environmental and competitive advantage. *Sustainability, 8*(9), 946.

Buysse, K., & Verbeke, A. (2003). Proactive environmental strategies: A stakeholder management perspective. *Strategic Management Journal, 24*(5), 453-470. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.299

Chatin, M. (2016). Brazil: Analysis of rising soft power. *Journal of Political Power, 9*(3), 369-393. https://doi.org/10.1080/2158379X.2016.1232286

Chaudhary, R. (2020). Green human resource management and employee green behavior: An empirical analysis. *Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27*(2), 630-641. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1827

Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation modelling. *Modern Methods for Business Research, 295*(2), 295-336.

Christman, P. (2004). Multinational companies & the natural environment: Determinants of global environmental policy. *Academy of Management Journal, 47*(5), 747-760. https://doi.org/10.2307/20159616

Chuang, C. H., Jackson, S. E., & Jiang, Y. (2016). Can knowledge-intensive teamwork be managed? Examining the roles of HRM systems, leadership, & tacit knowledge. *Journal of Management, 42*(2), 524-554. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206313478189

Coelho, M. B., Fragoso, E. J. N., dos Santos Santiago, A. M., & Pinheiro, F. A. (2020). Gestão de pessoas e sustentabilidade: Aspectos empiricos e práticos/People management and sustainability: Empirical and practical aspects. *ID on Line Revista de Psicologia, 14*(51), 349-365. https://doi.org/10.14295/idonline.v14i51.2582

Cooke, F. L., Dickmann, M., & Parry, E. (2022). Building sustainable societies through human-centered human resource management: Emerging issues and research opportunities. *The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 33*(1), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2021.2021732

Cop, S., Alola, U. V., & Alola, A. A. (2020). Perceived behavioral control as a mediator of hotels' green training, environmental commitment, and organizational citizenship behavior: A sustainable environmental practice. *Business Strategy and the Environment, 29*(8), 3495-3508. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2592

Cuevas-Rodríguez, G., Gomez-Mejia, L. R., & Wiseman, R. M. (2012). Has agency theory run its course?: Making the theory more flexible to inform the management of reward systems. *Corporate Governance: An International Review, 20*(6), 526-546. https://doi.org/10.1111/corg.12004

Daily, B. F., Bishop, J. W., & Massoud, J. A. (2012). The role of training and empowerment in environmental performance. *International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 32*(5), 631-647. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443571211226524

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. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443570110410892
<figure><img src="image_9.png" /></figure>

needed to activate GHRM and increased GHRM implementation may have diminishing impacts on performance if voluntary initiatives start being crowded out by corporate systems after a certain level.

## ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors gratefully acknowledge support from the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation, Agencia Nacional de Investigación-AEI, and the European Regional Development Fund-ERDF/FEDER-UE: R&D Projects PID2020-119663GB-IO0 and UAL2020-SEJ-D1872.

## ORCID

Diego Vázquez-Brust https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0852-5912

Charbel Jose Chiappetta Jabbour https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6143-4924

José Antonio Plaza-Úbeda https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5837-2515

Ana Beatriz Lopes de Sousa Jabbour https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6423-8868

## REFERENCES

Adomako, S., & Nguyen, N. P. (2020). Human resource slack, sustainable innovation, and environmental performance of small and medium-sized enterprises in sub-Saharan Africa. *Business Strategy and the Environment, 29*(8), 2984-2994. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2552

Akhtar, A., & Sarmah, A. K. (2018). Construction and demolition waste generation and properties of recycled aggregate concrete: A global perspective. *Journal of Cleaner Production, 186*, 262-281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.085

Alon, I., Lattemann, C., Fetscherin, M., Li, S., & Schneider, A. M. (2010). Usage of public corporate communications of social responsibility in Brazil, Russia, India, and China (BRIC). *International Journal of Emerging Markets*, 5, 6-22. https://doi.org/10.1108/17468801011018248

Andersson, S., Svensson, G., Otero-Neira, C., Laurell, H., Lindgren, J., & Karlsson, N. P. (2022). Sustainable development considerations in supply chains: Firms' relationships with stakeholders in their business sustainability practices—A triangular comparison. *Business Strategy and the Environment*, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3225

Applebaum, E., Bailey, P., Berg, P., Kalleberg, A. L., & Bailey, T. A. (2000). *Manufacturing advantage: Why high-performance work systems pay off*. Cornell University Press.

Bahuguna, P. C., Srivastava, R., & Tiwari, S. (2022). Two-decade journey of green human resource management research: A bibliometric analysis. *Benchmarking: An International Journal*. ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-10-2021-0619

Bello-Pintado, A. (2015). Bundles of HRM practices and performance: Empirical evidence from a Latin American context. *Human Resource Management Journal, 25*(3), 311-330. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12067

Berrone, P., & Gomez-Mejia, L. R. (2009a). Environmental performance and executive compensation: An integrated agency-institutional perspective. *Academy of Management Journal, 52*(1), 103-126. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009.36461950

Berrone, P., & Gomez-Mejia, L. R. (2009b). The pros and cons of rewarding social responsibility at the top. *Human Resource Management, 48*(6), 959-971. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.20324

Bhatia, M. S., & Kumar, S. (2022). Linking stakeholder and competitive pressure to industry 4.0 and performance: Mediating effect of environmental commitment and green process innovation. *Business Strategy and the Environment*, 31(5), 1905-1918. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2989

BM&FBOVESPA. (2019) Corporate sustainability index (ISE). Available at: http://www.bmfbovespa.com.br/en_us/products/indices/sustainability-indices/corporate-sustainability-index-ise.htm

Boselie, P., Dietz, G., & Boon, C. (2005). Commonalities and contradictions in HRM and performance research. *Human Resource Management Journal, 15*(3), 67-94. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-8583.2005.tb00154.x

Bosse, D. A., & Phillips, R. A. (2016). Agency theory and bounded self-interest. *Academy of Management Review, 41*(2), 276-297. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2013.0420

Bromley, P., & Powell, W. (2012). From smoke & mirrors to walking the talk: Decoupling in the contemporary world. *Academy of Management Annals, 6*(1), 483-530. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2012.684462

Buhl, A., Blazejewski, S., & Dittmer, F. (2016). The more, the merrier: Why and how employee-driven eco-innovation enhances environmental and competitive advantage. *Sustainability, 8*(9), 946.

Buysse, K., & Verbeke, A. (2003). Proactive environmental strategies: A stakeholder management perspective. *Strategic Management Journal, 24*(5), 453-470. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.299

Chatin, M. (2016). Brazil: Analysis of rising soft power. *Journal of Political Power, 9*(3), 369-393. https://doi.org/10.1080/2158379X.2016.1232286

Chaudhary, R. (2020). Green human resource management and employee green behavior: An empirical analysis. *Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27*(2), 630-641. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1827

Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation modelling. *Modern Methods for Business Research, 295*(2), 295-336.

Christman, P. (2004). Multinational companies & the natural environment: Determinants of global environmental policy. *Academy of Management Journal, 47*(5), 747-760. https://doi.org/10.2307/20159616

Chuang, C. H., Jackson, S. E., & Jiang, Y. (2016). Can knowledge-intensive teamwork be managed? Examining the roles of HRM systems, leadership, & tacit knowledge. *Journal of Management, 42*(2), 524-554. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206313478189

Coelho, M. B., Fragoso, E. J. N., dos Santos Santiago, A. M., & Pinheiro, F. A. (2020). Gestão de pessoas e sustentabilidade: Aspectos empiricos e práticos/People management and sustainability: Empirical and practical aspects. *ID on Line Revista de Psicologia, 14*(51), 349-365. https://doi.org/10.14295/idonline.v14i51.2582

Cooke, F. L., Dickmann, M., & Parry, E. (2022). Building sustainable societies through human-centered human resource management: Emerging issues and research opportunities. *The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 33*(1), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2021.2021732

Cop, S., Alola, U. V., & Alola, A. A. (2020). Perceived behavioral control as a mediator of hotels' green training, environmental commitment, and organizational citizenship behavior: A sustainable environmental practice. *Business Strategy and the Environment, 29*(8), 3495-3508. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2592

Cuevas-Rodríguez, G., Gomez-Mejia, L. R., & Wiseman, R. M. (2012). Has agency theory run its course?: Making the theory more flexible to inform the management of reward systems. *Corporate Governance: An International Review, 20*(6), 526-546. https://doi.org/10.1111/corg.12004

Daily, B. F., Bishop, J. W., & Massoud, J. A. (2012). The role of training and empowerment in environmental performance. *International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 32*(5), 631-647. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443571211226524

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. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443570110410892
<figure><img src="image_10.png" /></figure>

de Sousa Jabbour, A. B. L. (2015). Understanding the genesis of green supply chain management: Lessons from leading Brazilian companies. *Journal of Cleaner Production*, 87, 385-390. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.09.034

de Sousa Jabbour, A. B. L., Vazquez-Brust, D., Jabbour, C. J. C., & Latan, H. (2017). Green supply chain practices and environmental performance in Brazil: Survey, case studies, and implications for B2B. *Industrial Marketing Management*, 66, 13-28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2017.05.003

de Sousa, L., Jabbour, A. B., Vazquez-Brust, D., Chiappetta Jabbour, C. J., & Andriani Ribeiro, D. (2020). The interplay between stakeholders, resources and capabilities in climate change strategy: Converting barriers into cooperation. *Business Strategy and the Environment*, 29(3), 1362-1386. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2438

Delmas, M. (2001). Stakeholders and competitive advantage: The case of ISO 14001. *Production and Operations Management*, 10(3), 343-358. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1937-5956.2001.tb00379.x

Dick, P. (2005). Dirty work designations: How police officers account for their use of coercive force. *Human Relations*, 58(11), 1363-1390. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726705060242

Dubois, C. L., & Dubois, D. A. (2012). Strategic HRM as social design for environmental sustainability in organizations. *Human Resource Management*, 51(6), 799-826. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21504

Dumont, J., Shen, J., & Deng, X. (2016). Effects of green HRM practices on employee workplace green behavior: The role of psychological green climate and employee green values. *Human Resource Management*, 56(4), 613-627.

Dyllick, T., & Hockerts, K. (2002). Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability. *Business Strategy and the Environment*, 11(2), 130-141. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.323

Elia, G., Margherita, A., & Petti, C. (2020). Building responses to sustainable development challenges: A multistakeholder collaboration framework and application to climate change. *Business Strategy and the Environment*, 29(6), 2465-2478. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2514

Ervin, D., Wu, J., Khanna, M., Jones, C., & Wirkkala, T. (2013). Motivations and barriers to corporate environmental management. *Business Strategy and the Environment*, 22(6), 390-409. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1752

Fleury, A., & Fleury, M. T. L. (2011). *Brazilian multinationals: Competences for internationalisation*. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511933844

Folger, R., & Cropanzano, R. (1998). *Organizational justice and human resource management*. Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452225777

Freeman, R. E., Kujala, J., & Sachs, S. (Eds.). (2017). *Stakeholder engagement: Clinical research cases*. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62785-4

Gedam, V. V., Raut, R. D., de Sousa, L., Jabbour, A. B., Narkhede, B. E., & Grebinevych, O. (2021). Sustainable manufacturing and green human resources: Critical success factors in the automotive sector. *Business Strategy and the Environment*, 30(2), 1296-1313. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2685

Gholami, H., Rezaei, G., Saman, M. Z. M., Sharif, S., & Zakuan, N. (2016). State-of-the-art green HRM system: Sustainability in the sports center in Malaysia using a multi-methods approach and opportunities for future research. *Journal of Cleaner Production*, 124, 142-163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.02.105

Global Reporting Initiative. (2013) The sustainability content of integrated reports: A survey of pioneers. Available at: https://www.globalreporting.org/resourcelibrary/GRI-IR.pdf

González-Benito, J., & González-Benito, O. (2006). A review of determinant factors of environmental proactivity. *Business Strategy & the Environment*, 15(2), 87-102. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.450

Goworek, H., Land, C., Burt, G., Zundel, M., Saren, M., Parker, M., & Lambe, B. (2018). Scaling sustainability: Regulation and resilience in

managerial responses to climate change. *British Journal of Management*, 29(2), 209-219. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12295

Guerci, M., & Carollo, L. (2016). A paradox view on green human resource management: Insights from the Italian context. *The International Journal of Human Resource Management*, 27(2), 212-238. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2015.1033641

Guerci, M., Longoni, A., & Luzzini, D. (2016). Translating stakeholder pressures into environmental performance—The mediating role of green HRM practices. *International Journal of Human Resource Management*, 27(2), 262-289. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2015.1065431

Gupta, H. (2018). Assessing organizations performance on the basis of GHRM practices using BWM and fuzzy TOPSIS. *Journal of Environmental Management*, 226, 201-216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.08.005

Haffar, M., & Searcy, C. (2018). Target-setting for ecological resilience: Are companies setting environmental sustainability targets in line with planetary thresholds? *Business Strategy and the Environment*, 27(7), 1079-1092. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2053

Hair, J. F., Hult, G., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2016). *A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM)*. Sage Publications, Inc.

Haldorai, K., Kim, W. G., & Garcia, R. F. (2022). Top management green commitment and green intellectual capital as enablers of hotel environmental performance: The mediating role of green human resource management. *Tourism Management*, 88, 104431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2021.104431

Hameed, Z., Naeem, R. M., Hassan, M., Naeem, M., Nazim, M., & Maqbool, A. (2021). How GHRM is related to green creativity? A moderated mediation model of green transformational leadership and green perceived organizational support. *International Journal of Management*. 43(3), 595-613.

Hill, C. W., & Jones, T. M. (1992). Stakeholder-agency theory. *Journal of Management Studies*, 29(2), 131-154. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.1992.tb00657.x

Hox, J. J., Moerbeek, M., & Van De Schoot, R. (2010). *Multilevel analysis techniques*. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203852279

Huselid, M. A. (1995). The impact of human resource management practices on turnover, productivity, and corporate financial performance. *Academy of Management Journal*, 38(3), 635-672. https://doi.org/10.2307/256741

Initiative Climate Bonds. (2017) Brazil Green Finance Initiative: Sets 2018 strategy for low carbon economy, green investment, international partnerships and more! Available at: https://www.climatebonds.net/2017/12/brazil-green-finance-initiative-sets-2018-strategy-low-carbon-economy-green-investment

Islam, M. A., Hack-Polay, D., Haque, A., Rahman, M., & Hossain, M. S. (2022). Moderating role of psychological empowerment on the relationship between green HRM practices and millennial employee retention in the hotel industry of Bangladesh. *Business Strategy & Development*, 5(1), 17-29. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsd2.180

Jabbour, C. J. C., Santos, F. C. A., & Nagano, M. S. (2010). Contributions of HRM throughout the stages of environmental management: Methodological triangulation applied to companies in Brazil. *The International Journal of Human Resource Management*, 21(7), 1049-1089. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585191003783512

Jackson, S. E., Schuler, R. E., & Jiang, K. (2014). Aspirational framework for strategic human resource management. *The Academy of Management Annals*, 8(1), 1-56. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2014.872335

Ji, L., Huang, J., Liu, Z., Zhu, H., & Cai, Z. (2012). The effects of employee training on the relationship between environmental attitude & firms' performance in sustainable development. *International Journal of Human Resource Management*, 23(14), 2995-3008. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2011.637072

Jiang, K., Lepak, D. P., Hu, J., & Baer, J. C. (2012). How does human resource management influence organizational outcomes? A meta-
<figure><img src="image_10.png" /></figure>

de Sousa Jabbour, A. B. L. (2015). Understanding the genesis of green supply chain management: Lessons from leading Brazilian companies. *Journal of Cleaner Production*, 87, 385-390. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.09.034

de Sousa Jabbour, A. B. L., Vazquez-Brust, D., Jabbour, C. J. C., & Latan, H. (2017). Green supply chain practices and environmental performance in Brazil: Survey, case studies, and implications for B2B. *Industrial Marketing Management*, 66, 13-28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2017.05.003

de Sousa, L., Jabbour, A. B., Vazquez-Brust, D., Chiappetta Jabbour, C. J., & Andriani Ribeiro, D. (2020). The interplay between stakeholders, resources and capabilities in climate change strategy: Converting barriers into cooperation. *Business Strategy and the Environment*, 29(3), 1362-1386. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2438

Delmas, M. (2001). Stakeholders and competitive advantage: The case of ISO 14001. *Production and Operations Management*, 10(3), 343-358. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1937-5956.2001.tb00379.x

Dick, P. (2005). Dirty work designations: How police officers account for their use of coercive force. *Human Relations*, 58(11), 1363-1390. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726705060242

Dubois, C. L., & Dubois, D. A. (2012). Strategic HRM as social design for environmental sustainability in organizations. *Human Resource Management*, 51(6), 799-826. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21504

Dumont, J., Shen, J., & Deng, X. (2016). Effects of green HRM practices on employee workplace green behavior: The role of psychological green climate and employee green values. *Human Resource Management*, 56(4), 613-627.

Dyllick, T., & Hockerts, K. (2002). Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability. *Business Strategy and the Environment*, 11(2), 130-141. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.323

Elia, G., Margherita, A., & Petti, C. (2020). Building responses to sustainable development challenges: A multistakeholder collaboration framework and application to climate change. *Business Strategy and the Environment*, 29(6), 2465-2478. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2514

Ervin, D., Wu, J., Khanna, M., Jones, C., & Wirkkala, T. (2013). Motivations and barriers to corporate environmental management. *Business Strategy and the Environment*, 22(6), 390-409. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1752

Fleury, A., & Fleury, M. T. L. (2011). *Brazilian multinationals: Competences for internationalisation*. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511933844

Folger, R., & Cropanzano, R. (1998). *Organizational justice and human resource management*. Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452225777

Freeman, R. E., Kujala, J., & Sachs, S. (Eds.). (2017). *Stakeholder engagement: Clinical research cases*. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62785-4

Gedam, V. V., Raut, R. D., de Sousa, L., Jabbour, A. B., Narkhede, B. E., & Grebinevych, O. (2021). Sustainable manufacturing and green human resources: Critical success factors in the automotive sector. *Business Strategy and the Environment*, 30(2), 1296-1313. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2685

Gholami, H., Rezaei, G., Saman, M. Z. M., Sharif, S., & Zakuan, N. (2016). State-of-the-art green HRM system: Sustainability in the sports center in Malaysia using a multi-methods approach and opportunities for future research. *Journal of Cleaner Production*, 124, 142-163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.02.105

Global Reporting Initiative. (2013) The sustainability content of integrated reports: A survey of pioneers. Available at: https://www.globalreporting.org/resourcelibrary/GRI-IR.pdf

González-Benito, J., & González-Benito, O. (2006). A review of determinant factors of environmental proactivity. *Business Strategy & the Environment*, 15(2), 87-102. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.450

Goworek, H., Land, C., Burt, G., Zundel, M., Saren, M., Parker, M., & Lambe, B. (2018). Scaling sustainability: Regulation and resilience in

managerial responses to climate change. *British Journal of Management*, 29(2), 209-219. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12295

Guerci, M., & Carollo, L. (2016). A paradox view on green human resource management: Insights from the Italian context. *The International Journal of Human Resource Management*, 27(2), 212-238. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2015.1033641

Guerci, M., Longoni, A., & Luzzini, D. (2016). Translating stakeholder pressures into environmental performance—The mediating role of green HRM practices. *International Journal of Human Resource Management*, 27(2), 262-289. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2015.1065431

Gupta, H. (2018). Assessing organizations performance on the basis of GHRM practices using BWM and fuzzy TOPSIS. *Journal of Environmental Management*, 226, 201-216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.08.005

Haffar, M., & Searcy, C. (2018). Target-setting for ecological resilience: Are companies setting environmental sustainability targets in line with planetary thresholds? *Business Strategy and the Environment*, 27(7), 1079-1092. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2053

Hair, J. F., Hult, G., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2016). *A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM)*. Sage Publications, Inc.

Haldorai, K., Kim, W. G., & Garcia, R. F. (2022). Top management green commitment and green intellectual capital as enablers of hotel environmental performance: The mediating role of green human resource management. *Tourism Management*, 88, 104431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2021.104431

Hameed, Z., Naeem, R. M., Hassan, M., Naeem, M., Nazim, M., & Maqbool, A. (2021). How GHRM is related to green creativity? A moderated mediation model of green transformational leadership and green perceived organizational support. *International Journal of Management*. 43(3), 595-613.

Hill, C. W., & Jones, T. M. (1992). Stakeholder-agency theory. *Journal of Management Studies*, 29(2), 131-154. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.1992.tb00657.x

Hox, J. J., Moerbeek, M., & Van De Schoot, R. (2010). *Multilevel analysis techniques*. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203852279

Huselid, M. A. (1995). The impact of human resource management practices on turnover, productivity, and corporate financial performance. *Academy of Management Journal*, 38(3), 635-672. https://doi.org/10.2307/256741

Initiative Climate Bonds. (2017) Brazil Green Finance Initiative: Sets 2018 strategy for low carbon economy, green investment, international partnerships and more! Available at: https://www.climatebonds.net/2017/12/brazil-green-finance-initiative-sets-2018-strategy-low-carbon-economy-green-investment

Islam, M. A., Hack-Polay, D., Haque, A., Rahman, M., & Hossain, M. S. (2022). Moderating role of psychological empowerment on the relationship between green HRM practices and millennial employee retention in the hotel industry of Bangladesh. *Business Strategy & Development*, 5(1), 17-29. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsd2.180

Jabbour, C. J. C., Santos, F. C. A., & Nagano, M. S. (2010). Contributions of HRM throughout the stages of environmental management: Methodological triangulation applied to companies in Brazil. *The International Journal of Human Resource Management*, 21(7), 1049-1089. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585191003783512

Jackson, S. E., Schuler, R. E., & Jiang, K. (2014). Aspirational framework for strategic human resource management. *The Academy of Management Annals*, 8(1), 1-56. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2014.872335

Ji, L., Huang, J., Liu, Z., Zhu, H., & Cai, Z. (2012). The effects of employee training on the relationship between environmental attitude & firms' performance in sustainable development. *International Journal of Human Resource Management*, 23(14), 2995-3008. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2011.637072

Jiang, K., Lepak, D. P., Hu, J., & Baer, J. C. (2012). How does human resource management influence organizational outcomes? A meta-
<figure><img src="image_11.png" /></figure>

analytic investigation of mediating mechanisms. *Academy of Management Journal*, 55(6), 1264-1294. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0088

Jordan, P. J., & Troth, A. C. (2020). Common method bias in applied settings: The dilemma of researching in organizations. *Australian Journal of Management*, 45(1), 3-14. https://doi.org/10.1177/0312896219871976

Kim, A., Kim, Y., Han, K., Jackson, S. E., & Ployhart, R. (2017). ‘Multilevel influences on voluntary workplace green behavior: Individual differences, leader behavior, and coworker advocacy. *Journal of Management*, 43(5), 1335-1358. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314547386

Kim, J. (2016). Impact of performance appraisal justice on the effectiveness of pay-for-performance systems after civil service reform. *Public Personnel Management*, 45(2), 148-170. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091026016644625

Kitsis, A. M., & Chen, I. J. (2021). Do stakeholder pressures influence green supply chain practices? Exploring the mediating role of top management commitment. *Journal of Cleaner Production*, 316, 128258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128258

Kock, C. J., Santaló, J., & Diestre, L. (2012). Corporate governance and the environment: What type of governance creates greener companies? *Journal of Management Studies*, 49(3), 492-514. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.00993.x

Kock, N., & Hadaya, P. (2018). Minimum sample size estimation in PLS-SEM: The inverse square root and gamma-exponential methods. *Information Systems Journal*, 28(1), 227-261. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12131

Longoni, A., Luzzini, D., & Guerci, M. (2018). Deploying environmental management across functions: The relationship between green human resource management and green supply chain management. *Journal of Business Ethics*, 151(4), 1081-1095. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3228-1

Martinez, F., Peattie, K., & Vazquez-Brust, D. (2019). Beyond win-win: A syncretic theory on corporate stakeholder engagement in sustainable development. *Business Strategy and the Environment*, 28(5), 896-908. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2292

Mitchell, R. K., Weaver, G. R., Agle, B. R., Bailey, A. D., & Carlson, J. (2016). Stakeholder agency and social welfare: Pluralism and decision making in the multi-objective corporation. *Academy of Management Review*, 41(2), 252-275. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2013.0486

MMAI. (2016) Polo industrial de Cubatão será abastecido com água dessalinizada. Available at: http://rmai.com.br/polo-industrial-de-cubatao-sera-abastecido-com-agua-dessalinizada/

MMAI. (2019) Campanha da Flex evita descarte de 4,8 toneladas de lixo e de 48 mil m³ de água. Available at: http://rmai.com.br/campanha-da-flex-evita-descarte-de-48-toneladas-de-lixo-e-de-48-mil-m%c2%b3-de-agua/

Montabon, F., Melnyk, S. A., Sroufe, R., & Calantone, R. J. (2000). ISO 14000: Assessing its perceived impact on corporate performance. *Journal of Supply Chain Management*, 36(1), 4-16. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-493X.2000.tb00073.x

Murillo-Luna, J. L., Garcés-Ayerbe, C., & Rivera-Torres, P. (2008). Why do patterns of environmental response differ? A stakeholder pressure approach. *Strategic Management Journal*, 29(11), 1225-1240.

Paulraj, A., Chen, I. J., & Blome, C. (2017). Motives and performance outcomes of sustainable supply chain management practices: A multi-theoretical perspective. *Journal of Business Ethics*, 145(2), 239-258. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2857-0

Payán-Sánchez, B., Plaza-Úbeda, J. A., Pérez-Valls, M., & Carmona-Moreno, E. (2018). Social embeddedness for sustainability in the aviation sector. *Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management*, 25(4), 537-553. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1477

Peattie, K., & Ringer, A. (1994). Management & the environment in the UK & Germany: A comparison. *European Management Journal*, 12(2), 216-225. https://doi.org/10.1016/0263-2373(94)90013-2

Pellegrini, C., Rizzi, F., & Frey, M. (2018). The role of sustainable human resource practices in influencing employee behavior for corporate sustainability. *Business Strategy and the Environment*, 27(8), 1221-1232. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2064

Pepper, A., & Gore, J. (2015). Behavioral agency theory: New foundations for theorising about executive compensation. *Journal of Management*, 41(4), 1045-1068. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206312461054

Plaza-Úbeda, J. A., Burgos-Jiménez, J., Vazquez, D. A., & Liston-Heyes, C. (2009). The ‘win-win’ paradigm and stakeholder integration. *Business Strategy and the Environment*, 18(8), 487-499. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.593

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature & recommended remedies. *Journal of Applied Psychology*, 88(5), 879-903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations. *Annual Review of Psychology*, 63, 539-569. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452

Ramus, C. A., & Steger, U. (2000). The roles of supervisory support behaviors and environmental policy in employee “Ecoinitiatives” at leading-edge companies. *Academy of Management Journal*, 43(4), 605-626. https://doi.org/10.2307/1556357

Reinecke, J., & Ansari, S. (2021). Microfoundations of framing: The interactional production of collective action frames in the occupy movement. *Academy of Management Journal*, 64(2), 378-408. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2018.1063

Ren, S., Tang, G., & Jackson, S. E. (2020). Effects of green HRM and CEO ethical leadership on organizations' environmental performance. *International Journal of Manpower*, 42(6), 961-983. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJM-09-2019-0414

Renwick, D.W.S. (ed) (2020) Contemporary developments in green human resource management research: Towards sustainability in action?, First Edition (June) *Routledge research in sustainability and business series*, Routledge, pp.1-199.

Rivera-Santos, M., Rufín, C., & Wassmer, U. (2017). Alliances between firms and non-profits: A multiple and behavioural agency approach. *Journal of Management Studies*, 54(6), 854-875. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12271

Rojas, M. (2012). Quality of life in Latin America and the Caribbean. In Land, K., Michalos, A., & Sirgy, M. (Eds.). *Handbook of social indicators and quality of life research*. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2421-1_24

Roscoe, S., Subramanian, N., Jabbour, C. J., & Chong, T. (2019). Green human resource management and the enablers of green organisational culture: Enhancing a firm's environmental performance for sustainable development. *Business Strategy and the Environment*, 28(5), 737-749. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2277

Roxas, B., Chadee, D., de Jesus, R. M. C., & Cosape, A. (2017). Human and social capital and environmental management in small firms: A developing country perspective. *Asian Journal of Business Ethics*, 6(1), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13520-016-0066-2

Roxas, B., & Lindsay, V. (2012). Social desirability bias in survey research on sustainable development in small firms: An exploratory analysis of survey mode effect. *Business Strategy and the Environment*, 21(4), 223-235. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.730

Sarkis, J., Gonzalez-Torre, P., & Adenso-Diaz, B. (2010). Stakeholder pressure & adoption of environmental practices: The mediating effect of training. *Journal of Operations Management*, 28(2), 163-176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2009.10.001
<figure><img src="image_11.png" /></figure>

analytic investigation of mediating mechanisms. *Academy of Management Journal*, 55(6), 1264-1294. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0088

Jordan, P. J., & Troth, A. C. (2020). Common method bias in applied settings: The dilemma of researching in organizations. *Australian Journal of Management*, 45(1), 3-14. https://doi.org/10.1177/0312896219871976

Kim, A., Kim, Y., Han, K., Jackson, S. E., & Ployhart, R. (2017). ‘Multilevel influences on voluntary workplace green behavior: Individual differences, leader behavior, and coworker advocacy. *Journal of Management*, 43(5), 1335-1358. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314547386

Kim, J. (2016). Impact of performance appraisal justice on the effectiveness of pay-for-performance systems after civil service reform. *Public Personnel Management*, 45(2), 148-170. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091026016644625

Kitsis, A. M., & Chen, I. J. (2021). Do stakeholder pressures influence green supply chain practices? Exploring the mediating role of top management commitment. *Journal of Cleaner Production*, 316, 128258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128258

Kock, C. J., Santaló, J., & Diestre, L. (2012). Corporate governance and the environment: What type of governance creates greener companies? *Journal of Management Studies*, 49(3), 492-514. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.00993.x

Kock, N., & Hadaya, P. (2018). Minimum sample size estimation in PLS-SEM: The inverse square root and gamma-exponential methods. *Information Systems Journal*, 28(1), 227-261. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12131

Longoni, A., Luzzini, D., & Guerci, M. (2018). Deploying environmental management across functions: The relationship between green human resource management and green supply chain management. *Journal of Business Ethics*, 151(4), 1081-1095. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3228-1

Martinez, F., Peattie, K., & Vazquez-Brust, D. (2019). Beyond win-win: A syncretic theory on corporate stakeholder engagement in sustainable development. *Business Strategy and the Environment*, 28(5), 896-908. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2292

Mitchell, R. K., Weaver, G. R., Agle, B. R., Bailey, A. D., & Carlson, J. (2016). Stakeholder agency and social welfare: Pluralism and decision making in the multi-objective corporation. *Academy of Management Review*, 41(2), 252-275. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2013.0486

MMAI. (2016) Polo industrial de Cubatão será abastecido com água dessalinizada. Available at: http://rmai.com.br/polo-industrial-de-cubatao-sera-abastecido-com-agua-dessalinizada/

MMAI. (2019) Campanha da Flex evita descarte de 4,8 toneladas de lixo e de 48 mil m³ de água. Available at: http://rmai.com.br/campanha-da-flex-evita-descarte-de-48-toneladas-de-lixo-e-de-48-mil-m%c2%b3-de-agua/

Montabon, F., Melnyk, S. A., Sroufe, R., & Calantone, R. J. (2000). ISO 14000: Assessing its perceived impact on corporate performance. *Journal of Supply Chain Management*, 36(1), 4-16. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-493X.2000.tb00073.x

Murillo-Luna, J. L., Garcés-Ayerbe, C., & Rivera-Torres, P. (2008). Why do patterns of environmental response differ? A stakeholder pressure approach. *Strategic Management Journal*, 29(11), 1225-1240.

Paulraj, A., Chen, I. J., & Blome, C. (2017). Motives and performance outcomes of sustainable supply chain management practices: A multi-theoretical perspective. *Journal of Business Ethics*, 145(2), 239-258. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2857-0

Payán-Sánchez, B., Plaza-Úbeda, J. A., Pérez-Valls, M., & Carmona-Moreno, E. (2018). Social embeddedness for sustainability in the aviation sector. *Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management*, 25(4), 537-553. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1477

Peattie, K., & Ringer, A. (1994). Management & the environment in the UK & Germany: A comparison. *European Management Journal*, 12(2), 216-225. https://doi.org/10.1016/0263-2373(94)90013-2

Pellegrini, C., Rizzi, F., & Frey, M. (2018). The role of sustainable human resource practices in influencing employee behavior for corporate sustainability. *Business Strategy and the Environment*, 27(8), 1221-1232. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2064

Pepper, A., & Gore, J. (2015). Behavioral agency theory: New foundations for theorising about executive compensation. *Journal of Management*, 41(4), 1045-1068. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206312461054

Plaza-Úbeda, J. A., Burgos-Jiménez, J., Vazquez, D. A., & Liston-Heyes, C. (2009). The ‘win-win’ paradigm and stakeholder integration. *Business Strategy and the Environment*, 18(8), 487-499. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.593

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature & recommended remedies. *Journal of Applied Psychology*, 88(5), 879-903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations. *Annual Review of Psychology*, 63, 539-569. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452

Ramus, C. A., & Steger, U. (2000). The roles of supervisory support behaviors and environmental policy in employee “Ecoinitiatives” at leading-edge companies. *Academy of Management Journal*, 43(4), 605-626. https://doi.org/10.2307/1556357

Reinecke, J., & Ansari, S. (2021). Microfoundations of framing: The interactional production of collective action frames in the occupy movement. *Academy of Management Journal*, 64(2), 378-408. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2018.1063

Ren, S., Tang, G., & Jackson, S. E. (2020). Effects of green HRM and CEO ethical leadership on organizations' environmental performance. *International Journal of Manpower*, 42(6), 961-983. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJM-09-2019-0414

Renwick, D.W.S. (ed) (2020) Contemporary developments in green human resource management research: Towards sustainability in action?, First Edition (June) *Routledge research in sustainability and business series*, Routledge, pp.1-199.

Rivera-Santos, M., Rufín, C., & Wassmer, U. (2017). Alliances between firms and non-profits: A multiple and behavioural agency approach. *Journal of Management Studies*, 54(6), 854-875. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12271

Rojas, M. (2012). Quality of life in Latin America and the Caribbean. In Land, K., Michalos, A., & Sirgy, M. (Eds.). *Handbook of social indicators and quality of life research*. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2421-1_24

Roscoe, S., Subramanian, N., Jabbour, C. J., & Chong, T. (2019). Green human resource management and the enablers of green organisational culture: Enhancing a firm's environmental performance for sustainable development. *Business Strategy and the Environment*, 28(5), 737-749. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2277

Roxas, B., Chadee, D., de Jesus, R. M. C., & Cosape, A. (2017). Human and social capital and environmental management in small firms: A developing country perspective. *Asian Journal of Business Ethics*, 6(1), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13520-016-0066-2

Roxas, B., & Lindsay, V. (2012). Social desirability bias in survey research on sustainable development in small firms: An exploratory analysis of survey mode effect. *Business Strategy and the Environment*, 21(4), 223-235. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.730

Sarkis, J., Gonzalez-Torre, P., & Adenso-Diaz, B. (2010). Stakeholder pressure & adoption of environmental practices: The mediating effect of training. *Journal of Operations Management*, 28(2), 163-176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2009.10.001
<figure><img src="image_12.png" /></figure>

Sharma, S. (2009). The mediating effect of information availability between organization design variables and environmental practices in the Canadian hotel industry. *Business Strategy and the Environment, 18*(4), 266-276. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.603

Shevchenko, A., Lévesque, M., & Pagell, M. (2016). Why firms delay reaching true sustainability. *Journal of Management Studies, 53*(5), 911-935. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12199

Shi, W., Connelly, B. L., & Hoskisson, R. E. (2017). External corporate governance and financial fraud: Cognitive evaluation theory insights on agency theory prescriptions. *Strategic Management Journal, 38*(6), 1268-1286.

Silva, M. E., Fritz, M. M., & Nunes, B. (2017). Scanning insights on sustainability and supply chain management in Brazil. *Journal of Operations & Supply Chain Management, 10*(1), 33-54. https://doi.org/10.12660/joscmv10n1p33-54

Singh, N., Jain, S., & Sharma, P. (2015). Motivations for implementing environmental management practices in Indian industries. *Ecological Economics, 109*, 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.11.003

Singh, S. K., Del Giudice, M., Chiappetta Jabbour, C. J., Latan, H., & Sohal, A. S. (2022). Stakeholder pressure, green innovation, and performance in small and medium-sized enterprises: The role of green dynamic capabilities. *Business Strategy and the Environment, 31*(1), 500-514. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2906

Stuenkel, O. (2016). Do BRICS possess soft power? *Journal of Political Power, 9*(3), 353-367. https://doi.org/10.1080/2158379X.2016.1232285

Tang, G., Chen, Y., Jiang, Y., Paillé, P., & Jia, J. (2018). Green human resource management practices: Scale development and validity. *Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 56*(1), 31-55. https://doi.org/10.1111/1744-7941.12147

Trapenard, B. (2018) Estudo NEXT-RH: A sustentabilidade e a porta de entrada. Available at: https://www.ideiasustentavel.com.br/next-rh-a-sustentabilidade-e-a-porta-de-entrada/

Vazquez, D. A., & Liston-Heyes, C. (2008). Corporate discourse and environmental performance in Argentina. *Business Strategy and the Environment, 17*(3), 179-193. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.508

Vazquez-Brust, D. A., Liston-Heyes, C., Plaza-Úbeda, J. A., & Burgos-Jiménez, J. (2010). Stakeholders pressures and strategic prioritisation: An empirical analysis of environmental responses in Argentinean firms. *Journal of Business Ethics, 91*(2), 171-192. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0612-0

Veld, M., Paauwe, J., & Boselie, P. (2010). HRM and strategic climates in hospitals: Does the message come across at the ward level? *Human Resource Management Journal, 20*(4), 339-356. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-8583.2010.00139.x

Vidal-Salazar, M. D., Cordón-Pozo, E., & Ferrón-Vilchez, V. (2012). Human resource management & developing proactive environmental strategies: The influence of environmental training & organizational learning. *Human Resource Management, 51*(6), 905-934. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21507

Vlajčić, D., Caputo, A., Marzi, G., & Dabić, M. (2018). Expatriates managers' cultural intelligence as promoter of knowledge transfer in

multinational companies. *Journal of Business Research*, 94, 367-377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.01.033

Wall, T. D., & Wood, S. J. (2005). The romance of human resource management and business performance, and the case for big science. *Human Relations, 58*(4), 429-462. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726705055032

Wijen, F. (2014). Means versus ends in opaque institutional fields: Trading off compliance & achievement in sustainability standard adoption. *Academy of Management Review, 39*(3), 302-323. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2012.0218

Wolf, J. (2013). Improving the sustainable development of firms: The role of employees. *Business Strategy & the Environment, 22*(2), 92-108. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1731

Xie, X., Hoang, T. T., & Zhu, Q. (2022). Green process innovation and financial performance: The role of green social capital and customers' tacit green needs. *Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 7*(1), 100165.

Yakovleva, N., & Vazquez-Brust, D. A. (2018). Multinational mining enterprises and artisanal small-scale miners: From confrontation to cooperation. *Journal of World Business, 53*(1), 52-62.

Yong, J. Y., Yusliza, M. Y., Ramayah, T., Chiappetta Jabbour, C. J., Sehnem, S., & Mani, V. (2020). Pathways towards sustainability in manufacturing organizations: Empirical evidence on the role of green human resource management. *Business Strategy and the Environment, 29*(1), 212-228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwcb.2017.08.004

Zaid, A. A., Jaaron, A. A., & Bon, A. T. (2018). The impact of green human resource management and green supply chain management practices on sustainable performance: An empirical study. *Journal of Cleaner Production, 204*, 965-979. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.09.062

Zameer, H., Wang, Y., & Saeed, M. R. (2021). Net-zero emission targets and the role of managerial environmental awareness, customer pressure, and regulatory control toward environmental performance. *Business Strategy and the Environment, 30*(8), 4223-4236. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2866

Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J., & Lai, K. H. (2013). Institutional-based antecedents and performance outcomes of internal and external green supply chain management practices. *Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 19*(2), 106-117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pursup.2012.12.001

Zibarras, L. D., & Coan, P. (2015). HRM practices used to promote pro-environmental behavior: A UK survey. *International Journal of Human Resource Management, 26*(6), 2121-2142. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2014.972429

**How to cite this article:** Vázquez-Brust, D., Jabbour, C. J. C., Plaza-Úbeda, J. A., Perez-Valls, M., de Sousa Jabbour, A. B. L., & Renwick, D. W. S. (2023). The role of green human resource management in the translation of greening pressures into environmental protection practices. *Business Strategy and the Environment, 32*(6), 3628-3648. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3319
Sharma, S. (2009). The mediating effect of information availability between organization design variables and environmental practices in the Canadian hotel industry. *Business Strategy and the Environment, 18*(4), 266-276. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.603

Shevchenko, A., Lévesque, M., & Pagell, M. (2016). Why firms delay reaching true sustainability. *Journal of Management Studies, 53*(5), 911-935. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12199

Shi, W., Connelly, B. L., & Hoskisson, R. E. (2017). External corporate governance and financial fraud: Cognitive evaluation theory insights on agency theory prescriptions. *Strategic Management Journal, 38*(6), 1268-1286.

Silva, M. E., Fritz, M. M., & Nunes, B. (2017). Scanning insights on sustainability and supply chain management in Brazil. *Journal of Operations & Supply Chain Management, 10*(1), 33-54. https://doi.org/10.12660/joscmv10n1p33-54

Singh, N., Jain, S., & Sharma, P. (2015). Motivations for implementing environmental management practices in Indian industries. *Ecological Economics, 109*, 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.11.003

Singh, S. K., Del Giudice, M., Chiappetta Jabbour, C. J., Latan, H., & Sohal, A. S. (2022). Stakeholder pressure, green innovation, and performance in small and medium-sized enterprises: The role of green dynamic capabilities. *Business Strategy and the Environment, 31*(1), 500-514. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2906

Stuenkel, O. (2016). Do BRICS possess soft power? *Journal of Political Power, 9*(3), 353-367. https://doi.org/10.1080/2158379X.2016.1232285

Tang, G., Chen, Y., Jiang, Y., Paillé, P., & Jia, J. (2018). Green human resource management practices: Scale development and validity. *Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 56*(1), 31-55. https://doi.org/10.1111/1744-7941.12147

Trapenard, B. (2018) Estudo NEXT-RH: A sustentabilidade e a porta de entrada. Available at: https://www.ideiasustentavel.com.br/next-rh-a-sustentabilidade-e-a-porta-de-entrada/

Vazquez, D. A., & Liston-Heyes, C. (2008). Corporate discourse and environmental performance in Argentina. *Business Strategy and the Environment, 17*(3), 179-193. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.508

Vazquez-Brust, D. A., Liston-Heyes, C., Plaza-Úbeda, J. A., & Burgos-Jiménez, J. (2010). Stakeholders pressures and strategic prioritisation: An empirical analysis of environmental responses in Argentinean firms. *Journal of Business Ethics, 91*(2), 171-192. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0612-0

Veld, M., Paauwe, J., & Boselie, P. (2010). HRM and strategic climates in hospitals: Does the message come across at the ward level? *Human Resource Management Journal, 20*(4), 339-356. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-8583.2010.00139.x

Vidal-Salazar, M. D., Cordón-Pozo, E., & Ferrón-Vilchez, V. (2012). Human resource management & developing proactive environmental strategies: The influence of environmental training & organizational learning. *Human Resource Management, 51*(6), 905-934. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21507

Vlajčić, D., Caputo, A., Marzi, G., & Dabić, M. (2018). Expatriates managers' cultural intelligence as promoter of knowledge transfer in

multinational companies. *Journal of Business Research*, 94, 367-377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.01.033

Wall, T. D., & Wood, S. J. (2005). The romance of human resource management and business performance, and the case for big science. *Human Relations, 58*(4), 429-462. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726705055032

Wijen, F. (2014). Means versus ends in opaque institutional fields: Trading off compliance & achievement in sustainability standard adoption. *Academy of Management Review, 39*(3), 302-323. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2012.0218

Wolf, J. (2013). Improving the sustainable development of firms: The role of employees. *Business Strategy & the Environment, 22*(2), 92-108. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1731

Xie, X., Hoang, T. T., & Zhu, Q. (2022). Green process innovation and financial performance: The role of green social capital and customers' tacit green needs. *Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 7*(1), 100165.

Yakovleva, N., & Vazquez-Brust, D. A. (2018). Multinational mining enterprises and artisanal small-scale miners: From confrontation to cooperation. *Journal of World Business, 53*(1), 52-62.

Yong, J. Y., Yusliza, M. Y., Ramayah, T., Chiappetta Jabbour, C. J., Sehnem, S., & Mani, V. (2020). Pathways towards sustainability in manufacturing organizations: Empirical evidence on the role of green human resource management. *Business Strategy and the Environment, 29*(1), 212-228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwcb.2017.08.004

Zaid, A. A., Jaaron, A. A., & Bon, A. T. (2018). The impact of green human resource management and green supply chain management practices on sustainable performance: An empirical study. *Journal of Cleaner Production, 204*, 965-979. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.09.062

Zameer, H., Wang, Y., & Saeed, M. R. (2021). Net-zero emission targets and the role of managerial environmental awareness, customer pressure, and regulatory control toward environmental performance. *Business Strategy and the Environment, 30*(8), 4223-4236. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2866

Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J., & Lai, K. H. (2013). Institutional-based antecedents and performance outcomes of internal and external green supply chain management practices. *Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 19*(2), 106-117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pursup.2012.12.001

Zibarras, L. D., & Coan, P. (2015). HRM practices used to promote pro-environmental behavior: A UK survey. *International Journal of Human Resource Management, 26*(6), 2121-2142. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2014.972429

**How to cite this article:** Vázquez-Brust, D., Jabbour, C. J. C., Plaza-Úbeda, J. A., Perez-Valls, M., de Sousa Jabbour, A. B. L., & Renwick, D. W. S. (2023). The role of green human resource management in the translation of greening pressures into environmental protection practices. *Business Strategy and the Environment, 32*(6), 3628-3648. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3319
<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>VARIABLES</th><th>MEAN</th><th>SD</th><th>(1)</th><th>(2)</th><th>(3)</th><th>(4)</th><th>(5)</th><th>(6)</th><th>(8)</th><th>(9)</th><th>(10)</th><th>(11)</th><th>(12)</th><th>(13)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="5">CONTROL<br>VARIABLES</td><td>(1) ISO9001</td><td>0.796</td><td>0.405</td><td>1.000</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>(2) FIRM SIZE</td><td>2.845</td><td>0.978</td><td>0.494**</td><td>1.000</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>(3) AGE</td><td>4.883</td><td>1.504</td><td>0.121</td><td>0.340**</td><td>1.000</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>(4) MULTINATIONAL</td><td>0.437</td><td>0.498</td><td>0.203*</td><td>0.200*</td><td>0.025</td><td>1.000</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>(5) TURNOVER</td><td>2.840</td><td>0.978</td><td>0.489**</td><td>0.938**</td><td>0.321**</td><td>0.181</td><td>1.000</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">STAKEHOLDERS</td><td>(6) CUSTOMER PRESSURE<br>(STK_1)</td><td>3.019</td><td>1.180</td><td>0.264**</td><td>0.275**</td><td>0.142</td><td>0.078</td><td>0.258**</td><td>1.000</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>(7) GOVERNMENT<br>PRESSURE (STK_2)</td><td>3.078</td><td>1.161</td><td>-0.010</td><td>0.034</td><td>-0.025</td><td>0.056</td><td>0.020</td><td>0.451**</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>(8) SHAREHOLDERS<br>PRESSURE (STK_3)</td><td>3.165</td><td>1.076</td><td>0.129</td><td>0.152</td><td>0.073</td><td>0.254**</td><td>0.142</td><td>0.245*</td><td>1.000</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>(9) EMPLOYEES<br>PRESSURE (STK_4)</td><td>2.495</td><td>1.009</td><td>0.127</td><td>0.053</td><td>-0.062</td><td>0.078</td><td>0.051</td><td>0.476**</td><td>0.486**</td><td>1.000</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>(10) CIVIL SOCIETY<br>PRESSURE (STK_5)</td><td>2.466</td><td>1.178</td><td>0.025</td><td>0.112</td><td>-0.039</td><td>-0.014</td><td>0.096</td><td>0.445**</td><td>0.382**</td><td>0.572**</td><td>1.000</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">GHRM<br>SYSTEMS</td><td>(11) MEDIA PRESSURE<br>(STK_6)</td><td>2.583</td><td>1.142</td><td>0.031</td><td>0.222*</td><td>0.025</td><td>0.037</td><td>0.202*</td><td>0.318**</td><td>0.240*</td><td>0.394**</td><td>0.632**</td><td>1.000</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>(12) GREEN TRAINING<br>(GHRM_1)</td><td>3.214</td><td>1.054</td><td>0.326**</td><td>0.327**</td><td>0.153</td><td>0.174</td><td>0.301**</td><td>0.430**</td><td>0.435**</td><td>0.410**</td><td>0.349**</td><td>0.333**</td><td>1.000</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>(13) GREEN ASSESSMENT<br>(GHRM_2)</td><td>2.738</td><td>1.057</td><td>0.175</td><td>0.200*</td><td>0.073</td><td>0.132</td><td>0.191</td><td>0.459**</td><td>0.411**</td><td>0.444**</td><td>0.316**</td><td>0.234*</td><td>0.706**</td><td>1.000</td></tr><tr><td>(14) GREEN REWARDS<br>(GHRM_3)</td><td>2.204</td><td>1.013</td><td>0.189</td><td>0.275**</td><td>0.093</td><td>0.194*</td><td>0.250*</td><td>0.333**</td><td>0.395**</td><td>0.517**</td><td>0.406**</td><td>0.471**</td><td>0.469**</td><td>0.499**</td></tr><tr><td>(15) GREEN TEAMWORK<br>(GHRM_4)</td><td>2.913</td><td>1.172</td><td>0.399**</td><td>0.516**</td><td>0.125</td><td>0.235*</td><td>0.476**</td><td>0.450**</td><td>0.460**</td><td>0.450**</td><td>0.332**</td><td>0.448**</td><td>0.693**</td><td>0.589**</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">EPH</td><td>(16) GREEN MARKETING<br>(EPH_1)</td><td>2.796</td><td>1.324</td><td>0.246*</td><td>0.343**</td><td>0.173</td><td>0.083</td><td>0.315**</td><td>0.434**</td><td>0.355**</td><td>0.321**</td><td>0.291**</td><td>0.331**</td><td>0.477**</td><td>0.426**</td></tr><tr><td>(17) GREEN PRODUCT R&D<br>ECO DESIGN (EPH_2)</td><td>2.942</td><td>1.371</td><td>0.239*</td><td>0.235*</td><td>-0.002</td><td>0.123</td><td>0.225*</td><td>0.281**</td><td>0.404**</td><td>0.296**</td><td>0.205*</td><td>0.157</td><td>0.443**</td><td>0.356**</td></tr><tr><td>(18) GREEN PRODUCTION<br>PROCESSES/TECHNOLOGY<br>(EPH_3)</td><td>3.524</td><td>1.136</td><td>0.132</td><td>0.135</td><td>0.079</td><td>0.110</td><td>0.132</td><td>0.146</td><td>0.373**</td><td>0.204*</td><td>0.134</td><td>0.065</td><td>0.449**</td><td>0.361**</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>3.359</td><td>1.335</td><td>0.218*</td><td>0.145</td><td>0.031</td><td>0.048</td><td>0.137</td><td>0.172</td><td>0.364**</td><td>0.191</td><td>0.086</td><td>0.166</td><td>0.448**</td><td>0.349**</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><th></th><th></th><th></th><th>MEAN</th><th>SD</th><th>(1)</th><th>(2)</th><th>(3)</th><th>(4)</th><th>(5)</th><th>(6)</th><th>(8)</th><th>(9)</th><th>(10)</th><th>(11)</th><th>(12)</th><th>(13)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="5">CONTROL<br>VARIABLES</td><td>(1) ISO9001</td><td></td><td>0.796</td><td>0.405</td><td>1.000</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>(2) FIRM SIZE</td><td></td><td>2.845</td><td>0.978</td><td>0.494**</td><td>1.000</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>(3) AGE</td><td></td><td>4.883</td><td>1.504</td><td>0.121</td><td>0.340**</td><td>1.000</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>(4) MULTINATIONAL</td><td></td><td>0.437</td><td>0.498</td><td>0.203*</td><td>0.200*</td><td>0.025</td><td>1.000</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>(5) TURNOVER</td><td></td><td>2.840</td><td>0.978</td><td>0.489**</td><td>0.938**</td><td>0.321**</td><td>0.181</td><td>1.000</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">STAKEHOLDERS</td><td>(6) CUSTOMER PRESSURE<br>(STK_1)</td><td></td><td>3.019</td><td>1.180</td><td>0.264**</td><td>0.275**</td><td>0.142</td><td>0.078</td><td>0.258**</td><td>1.000</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>(7) GOVERNMENT<br>PRESSURE (STK_2)</td><td></td><td>3.078</td><td>1.161</td><td>-0.010</td><td>0.034</td><td>-0.025</td><td>0.056</td><td>0.020</td><td>0.451**</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>(8) SHAREHOLDERS<br>PRESSURE (STK_3)</td><td></td><td>3.165</td><td>1.076</td><td>0.129</td><td>0.152</td><td>0.073</td><td>0.254**</td><td>0.142</td><td>0.245*</td><td>1.000</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>(9) EMPLOYEES<br>PRESSURE (STK_4)</td><td></td><td>2.495</td><td>1.009</td><td>0.127</td><td>0.053</td><td>-0.062</td><td>0.078</td><td>0.051</td><td>0.476**</td><td>0.486**</td><td>1.000</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>(10) CIVIL SOCIETY<br>PRESSURE (STK_5)</td><td></td><td>2.466</td><td>1.178</td><td>0.025</td><td>0.112</td><td>-0.039</td><td>-0.014</td><td>0.096</td><td>0.445**</td><td>0.382**</td><td>0.572**</td><td>1.000</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">GHRM<br>SYSTEMS</td><td>(11) MEDIA PRESSURE<br>(STK_6)</td><td></td><td>2.583</td><td>1.142</td><td>0.031</td><td>0.222*</td><td>0.025</td><td>0.037</td><td>0.202*</td><td>0.318**</td><td>0.240*</td><td>0.394**</td><td>0.632**</td><td>1.000</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>(12) GREEN TRAINING<br>(GHRM_1)</td><td></td><td>3.214</td><td>1.054</td><td>0.326**</td><td>0.327**</td><td>0.153</td><td>0.174</td><td>0.301**</td><td>0.430**</td><td>0.435**</td><td>0.410**</td><td>0.349**</td><td>0.333**</td><td>1.000</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>(13) GREEN ASSESSMENT<br>(GHRM_2)</td><td></td><td>2.738</td><td>1.057</td><td>0.175</td><td>0.200*</td><td>0.073</td><td>0.132</td><td>0.191</td><td>0.459**</td><td>0.411**</td><td>0.444**</td><td>0.316**</td><td>0.234*</td><td>0.706**</td><td>1.000</td></tr><tr><td>(14) GREEN REWARDS<br>(GHRM_3)</td><td></td><td>2.204</td><td>1.013</td><td>0.189</td><td>0.275**</td><td>0.093</td><td>0.194*</td><td>0.250*</td><td>0.333**</td><td>0.395**</td><td>0.517**</td><td>0.406**</td><td>0.471**</td><td>0.469**</td><td>0.499**</td></tr><tr><td>(15) GREEN TEAMWORK<br>(GHRM_4)</td><td></td><td>2.913</td><td>1.172</td><td>0.399**</td><td>0.516**</td><td>0.125</td><td>0.235*</td><td>0.476**</td><td>0.450**</td><td>0.460**</td><td>0.450**</td><td>0.332**</td><td>0.448**</td><td>0.693**</td><td>0.589**</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">EPH</td><td>(16) GREEN MARKETING<br>(EPH_1)</td><td></td><td>2.796</td><td>1.324</td><td>0.246*</td><td>0.343**</td><td>0.173</td><td>0.083</td><td>0.315**</td><td>0.434**</td><td>0.355**</td><td>0.321**</td><td>0.291**</td><td>0.331**</td><td>0.477**</td><td>0.426**</td></tr><tr><td>(17) GREEN PRODUCT R&D<br>ECO DESIGN (EPH_2)</td><td></td><td>2.942</td><td>1.371</td><td>0.239*</td><td>0.235*</td><td>-0.002</td><td>0.123</td><td>0.225*</td><td>0.281**</td><td>0.404**</td><td>0.296**</td><td>0.205*</td><td>0.157</td><td>0.443**</td><td>0.356**</td></tr><tr><td>(18) GREEN PRODUCTION<br>PROCESSES/TECHNOLOGY<br>(EPH_3)</td><td></td><td>3.524</td><td>1.136</td><td>0.132</td><td>0.135</td><td>0.079</td><td>0.110</td><td>0.132</td><td>0.146</td><td>0.373**</td><td>0.204*</td><td>0.134</td><td>0.065</td><td>0.449**</td><td>0.361**</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>3.359</td><td>1.335</td><td>0.218*</td><td>0.145</td><td>0.031</td><td>0.048</td><td>0.137</td><td>0.172</td><td>0.364**</td><td>0.191</td><td>0.086</td><td>0.166</td><td>0.448**</td><td>0.349**</td></tr></tbody></table>
<figure><img src="image_13.png" /></figure>

<table><thead><tr><th>VARIABLES</th><th>MEAN</th><th>SD</th><th>(1)</th><th>(2)</th><th>(3)</th><th>(4)</th><th>(5)</th><th>(6)</th><th>(8)</th><th>(9)</th><th>(10)</th><th>(11)</th><th>(12)</th><th>(13)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>(19) GREENER RAW MATERIALS/SOURCE REDUCTION (EPH_4)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>EPS</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>(20) ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS (EPS_1)</td><td>3.223</td><td>1.553</td><td>0.343**</td><td>0.320**</td><td>0.171</td><td>0.083</td><td>0.295**</td><td>0.373**</td><td>0.275**</td><td>0.261**</td><td>0.087</td><td>0.116</td><td>0.500**</td><td>0.566**</td></tr><tr><td>(21) GREEN SPONSOR DONATIONS COLLABORATION (EPS_2)</td><td>3.078</td><td>1.446</td><td>0.350**</td><td>0.357**</td><td>0.149</td><td>0.044</td><td>0.330**</td><td>0.355**</td><td>0.287**</td><td>0.250*</td><td>0.184</td><td>0.211*</td><td>0.496**</td><td>0.431**</td></tr><tr><td>(22) SUPPLIERS SELECTION WITH GREEN CRITERIA (EPS_3)</td><td>3.311</td><td>1.455</td><td>0.332**</td><td>0.229*</td><td>0.047</td><td>0.018</td><td>0.207*</td><td>0.336**</td><td>0.287**</td><td>0.320**</td><td>0.181</td><td>0.251*</td><td>0.498**</td><td>0.406**</td></tr><tr><td>(23) ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY (EPS_4)</td><td>3.825</td><td>1.431</td><td>0.501**</td><td>0.502**</td><td>0.152</td><td>0.194*</td><td>0.471**</td><td>0.393**</td><td>0.354**</td><td>0.229*</td><td>0.153</td><td>0.142</td><td>0.661**</td><td>0.472**</td></tr><tr><td>(24) FULL-TIME EMPLOYEES FOR GREEN ISSUES (EPS_5)</td><td>3.165</td><td>1.597</td><td>0.482**</td><td>0.563**</td><td>0.266**</td><td>0.176</td><td>0.522**</td><td>0.504**</td><td>0.267**</td><td>0.216*</td><td>0.153</td><td>0.123</td><td>0.505**</td><td>0.364**</td></tr><tr><td>(25) LONG-TERM GREEN OBJECTIVES (EPS_6)</td><td>3.524</td><td>1.434</td><td>0.477**</td><td>0.530**</td><td>0.202*</td><td>0.121</td><td>0.495**</td><td>0.426**</td><td>0.287**</td><td>0.239*</td><td>0.117</td><td>0.170</td><td>0.545**</td><td>0.412**</td></tr><tr><td>(26) PLANNING FOR ENVIRONMENTAL EMERGENCIES (EPS_7)</td><td>3.728</td><td>1.542</td><td>0.566**</td><td>0.564**</td><td>0.118</td><td>0.282**</td><td>0.523**</td><td>0.422**</td><td>0.263**</td><td>0.238*</td><td>0.166</td><td>0.169</td><td>0.552**</td><td>0.383**</td></tr></tbody></table>

Abbreviations: EPH, environmental protection hardware; EPS, environmental protection software; GHRM, green human resource management; STK, stakeholder greening pressures.
*, p < .05.
**, p < .01.

<table><tr><td>(14)</td><td>(15)</td><td>(16)</td><td>(17)</td><td>(18)</td><td>(19)</td><td>(20)</td><td>(21)</td><td>(22)</td><td>(23)</td><td>(24)</td><td>(25)</td></tr></table>

## CONTROL VARIABLES

### STAKEHOLDERS

### GHRM SYSTEMS