Abstract

 Purpose

     This paper points out that common human resource manageement (HRM) research and practice have overlooked employee’s class of origin. Workers’ class of origin can be seen as “the elephant in the room” in current HRM, being that it significantly affects organizational decision-making with negative social (increased class-based inequality) and organizational (inefficient allocation of human re-sources) effects.

Design/methodology/approach

     The paper summarizes the partial, fragmented and multi-disciplinary literature on HRM and employees’ social class of origin.

Findings

     The paper shows how recruiting, selection, training and development practices systematically reinforce class-based inequality by providing high-class employees with more resources and opportunities compared to low-class employees.

Practical implications

     The paper provides sustainable HR practitioners, educators and researchers with recommendations on how to address employees’ social class of origin, improving organizational competitive advantage and reducing class-based inequality at the societal level.

Originality/value

     The paper focuses on a topic which, in diversity management, is an elephant in the room (i.e. workers social class of origin).

Introduction

     In modern societies, individuals’ position in a social hierarchy is supposed to depend only on their merit and not on ascribed characteristics (Bell, 1973). Common human resource manageement (HRM) research and practice have supported this shift from ascription to merit; diversity management, in particular, aims at avoiding bias and discrimination against employees based on visible and invisible ascribed characteristics like gender, age, race, physical ability/disability, religion, sexual orientation or gender identity (e.g. K€ollen, 2021).

     Social stratification research provides extensive empirical evidence that individuals’ class of origin has a substantial and stable effect on occupational careers, above and beyond other ascribed characteristics, as well as merit-related variables such as education level (Goldthorpe, 2003). However, several scholars have recognized that common HRM practice tends to ignore an employee’s class of origin (e.g. Bidwellet al., 2013; Cobb, 2016; Dundon and Rafferty, 2018; Grothe-Hammer and Kohl, 2020; Jonsen et al., 2011), even when considering diversity management practices (Jonsen et al., 2021; Ricc
o and Guerci, 2014). For example, a recent analysis of DiversityInc’s 2019 list of 50 companies shows that “not a single company statement referred to social class” (Ingram and Oh, 2022, p. 6). Likewise, employees’ class of origin is rarely considered in common HRM research (Loignon and Woehr, 2018). As such, HRM practice contributes to the reproduction of class-based inequality in the workplace (van Dijk et al., 2020; Avent-Holt and Tomaskovic-Devey, 2019), e.g. in terms of the “class ceiling” (Ingram and Oh, 2022).

Conclusions

     This paper is a first attempt to render sustainable HRM practice, education and research sensitive to the concept of class-based inequality. Neglecting class-based inequalities does not only make organizations inequality reproducers, with negative effects on their social legitimacy; it also jeopardizes organizational performance, in particular through inefficient staff deployment and/or negative attitudes and behaviors of low-class employees due to discrimination and unequal treatment. We have shown how common HRM practices like recruitment and selection, as well as training and development, directly influence the social mobility of employees and thereby contribute to social inequality. Building on these analyses, we have provided the sustainable HRM community with some recommendations on how to avoid class-based inequality. We have also made some suggestions as to how future sustainable HRM studies can support such efforts.

This study aims to analyze the state-of-the-art of sustainable human resources management and to identify key elements, trends and research gaps. A systematic literature review was carried out using Scopus database, covering the period from 2001 to 2018, which resulted in a corpus of 115 scientific articles. Data analysis occurred through content analysis tools and statistical processing of the abstracts by the Alceste software, version 2015. The results showed four categories, which comprise 74% of the elementary units of the corpus analyzed. The first comprised studies on sustainable leadership, based on individual and group power and embedded in its principles, processes, practices and organizational values. The second demonstrated the relationship among human resources management, environmental sustainability and organizational performance. The third category considered the tensions and paradoxes between human resources management practices and sustainability: on the one hand, human resources management should focus on cost reduction and corporate profitability (in the short-term); on the other, their actions should provide long-term sustainability of organizational performance. The last category dealt with the link between human resources management and the social dimension of sustainability, especially with regard to organizational social responsibility and the company’s relationship with its stakeholders. In conclusion, this paper aims to contribute to the ongoing discussion on the topic of sustainable human resources management by analyzing the state of the art and future directions of human resources studies.

Introduction

The management process in the business environment has been concentrated for a long time in the achievement of short term financial goals, ignoring broader long-term objectives linked to human issues (Maley, 2014). On the other hand, the popular awareness in relation to the economical environmental and social problems that can emerge from the business scenario contributed more for organizations to show their commitment to sustainability (Ehnert et al., 2016). Moreover, the sustainable development in society is not possible without the sustainability assertion being present in the business world (Schaltegger et al., 2012; Zink, 2014; Wagner, 2015). It is noticed that there is an emerging concern in the academic sector for studies which focus on sustainability and the sustainable development (Linnenluecke and Griffiths, 2010). Although the number of researches has increased in recent years (Roca and Searcy, 2012), there are still divergencies on conceptual terms (Glavič and Lukman, 2007; Presley et al., 2007; Lozano, 2008), once sustainability presents itself as part of various scientific subjects. Furthermore, the term eventually is applied only as a theoretical expression and with political means or as a “fad”, facts that detract from the real meaning of sustainability (Leal Filho, 2000).

1 Introduction

Innovations are identified as an important catalyst for economic survival and growth in the hospitality literature (e.g., Binder et al., 2013; Orfila-Sintes and Mattsson, 2009; Ottenbacher, 2007; Wikhamn et al., 2018). Their positive impact is well recognized. For instance, innovative hotels are reported to perform better in terms of occupancy rate (Mattsson and Orfila‐Sintes, 2014) and customer loyalty (Tsai, 2017). Chadee and Mattsson (1996) show that innovative new products and services improve the financial performance and reputation of a hotel. Storey and Easingwood (1998) also identify a positive link between innovation behavior and hotel reputation. Hjalager (2010) and Hall and Williams (2008) argue that innovations have positive impacts on customer preference, service quality, employee productivity, firms’ market value and share, and customer retention. Despite its significance, innovation and its relationship with organizational performance is a major challenge facing the hospitality industry globally (Hjalager, 2002; Miralles, 2010; Ottenbacher and Gnoth, 2005). Some research reports indicate that the innovation-performance relationship may depend on organizational factors, such as implemented HRM policies and practices (Wheatley and Doty, 2010). HRM policies and practices have an impact on customer satisfaction, service quality and hotel performance (Chand, 2010; Dhar, 2015). This is because human interaction in service delivery is critical for customer experience (Tsaur and Lin, 2004). This suggests that although the survival and growth of the service sector relies on innovative services, labor-intensive industries are equally dependent on the performance of the employees (El Masry et al., 2004; Mohamed, 2016). Sustainable human resource management, described as the “adoption of HRM strategies and practices that enable the achievement of financial, social and ecological goals, with an impact inside and outside of the organization and over a long-term time horizon while controlling for unintended side effects and negative feedback” (Ehnert et al., 2016, p. 90), has emerged as a new approach to the employment relationship and has gained increased importance in the last decade (Ehnert et al., 2014). Exposed to external pressure, organizations have started to incorporate elements of corporate social responsibility (CSR), including sustainability-directed activities, into their policies and strategies. Moreover, an increasing number of corporations and large firms have started to publish an annual sustainability report (for a comprehensive list, see the sustainability disclosure database), including information on organizational efforts to manage human resources responsibly. Parallel to the developments in practice, growing scholarly attention has been devoted to studying the link between CSR and HRM. For instance, Voegtlin and Greenwood (2016) address the link between an organization’s responsibility to act ethically and HRM. Jamali and Karam, (2016, p. 126) highlight HRM as a potentially “promising managerial framework that can support organizational efforts in translating [CSR] strategies into practical managerial actions and outcomes.” Similarly, Voegtlin and Greenwood (2016) argue that HRM plays a major role in how CSR is understood, developed and implemented and that organizations’ understandings of social responsibility have implications for how they treat their employees. Although substantial research has been conducted on ecological and social sustainability in recent years, little attention has been devoted in this research to individual and collective human sustainability (Baum et al., 2016; Ehnert, 2009; Ehnert et al., 2014; Ehnert et al., 2016; Järlström et al., 2016; Kramar, 2014; Mariappanadar and Kramar, 2014).

1- Introduction

2- Theoretical background

3- Methodology

4- Analysis

5- Discussion

6- Conclusion

References

Abstract

Today, firms are becoming increasingly aware of the importance of social, ethical, and ecological objectives. In addition to financial profit, organizations are setting themselves new goals, focusing on individual, communal, and environmental-friendly performance and development. One of the disciplines that is promoting “green” organizations is Sustainable Human Resource Management (SHRM). Sustainable development goals (SDGs) are achieved through the adoption of new ecological techniques by the organization’s human capital and by the integration of innovative sustainable strategies. This systematic literature review examines the key role of SHRM in developing a sustainable work environment and in facilitating the attainment of SDGs. Based on a selection of empirical and conceptual articles, this review identifies the antecedents and outcomes of SHRM and highlights the obstacles to sustainable implementation not only at the level of the firm, but also from an international perspective. Four propositions are formulated that might be empirically tested in future studies. Research gaps in the existing literature are identified and potential future directions are suggested for further research in the field of sustainable management.

Introduction

The exponential growth of human economic expansion has had a devastating effect on the environment and on the world’s natural resources. At the same time, the engagement in social action to redress this situation is very limited (Bauman, 2000; Korten, 2001). Recent studies have drawn attention to the impact of the human factor on sustainable development and resource preservation (Pfeffer, 2010; Speth, 2010). With the increasing focus on social responsibility and sustainable performance, organizations have set themselves new goals other than mere financial profit, such as a commitment to social and environmental outcomes (Elkington, 1997). In fact, an international survey of 2800 global companies revealed that 70% of these organizations include sustainability as a primary issue in their strategic plans and agendas (Kiron et al., 2012). In 2015, the UN General Assembly presented “the 2030 Agenda for sustainable development” consisting of 17 sustainable development goals (SDGs) and 169 targets. The targets are built on the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and aim to accomplish their uncompleted objectives. The 17 goals are unified and incorporated in three dimensions of sustainable development: economic, social, and environmental. They are established on what are known as the five Ps: “people, planet, prosperity, peace, and partnership”. With regard to “people” and “prosperity”, the aim of the SDGs is to accommodate appropriate settings and generate specific conditions that enhance the development of sustained economic growth, efficient resource allocation, collective prosperity, and decent work environments. From the business perspective, the ultimate objective of the SDGs is to establish “sustainable, innovative, and people-oriented” economies that improve employment opportunities, in particular for the young generation and for women. The mission for organizations is to ensure that their workforces are healthy and well educated, and to nurture the awareness and proficiencies required to create productive employees and proactive citizens that contribute to society. The attainment of SDGs requires a strategic process involving several actors: the private and public sectors, governments, multi-national enterprises, non-governmental and philanthropic organizations, and individuals. Collaboration and interaction between these agents will represent a step further toward achieving sustainable consumption, integrating eco-friendly production and building harmonious societies. The 2030 Agenda describes itself as “an Agenda of the people, by the people, and for the people – and this will ensure its success” (United Nations, General Assembly, 2015, p. 12).

1- Introduction

2- Sustainable corporate strategy and sustainable human resource management strategies

3- Sustainable human resource management strategies, employment relationships and HRM systems

4- Discussion and conclusions

References

Abstract

This paper aims to develop a conceptual framework capable of analysing the contributions made by strategic human resources management (SHRM) to firm sustainability and competitiveness. Specifically, we identify different sustainable corporate strategies and the way in which they are supported by coherent sustainable HRM strategies. We propose different sustainable employment relationships considering two dimensions: inducements offered by an organisation and expected employee behaviours in order to comply with sustainable HRM strategies. All the above also necessitates a system of HRM practices (content of the employment relationship) that should be well defined and oriented towards sustainability. Accordingly, we suggest associations of specific systems of HRM practices, depending on the type of employment relationship and sustainable HRM strategy, in order to promote the expected ‘Triple Bottom Line’, and which also improve firm competitiveness.

Introduction

The importance of incorporating sustainability into the management of organisations is a phenomenon that is increasingly drawing attention as a consequence of the effects of institutional and stakeholder pressures, forcing substantial changes in the commitment shown by organisations to this issue as part of their drive for social approval (Meyer & Rowan, 1977). The pressure of governments through regulations, for example, has been the subject of controversy, since these bring costs for organisations in their short-term adaptation process, which can affect their competitiveness (Wilkinson, Hill, & Gollan, 2001). The term sustainability has received different labels depending on the sphere or perspective from which it has been studied. Hence, the Resource Based View (RBV) incorporates the term into the strategic analysis of business, making reference to the maintenance of competitive position (Barney, 1991) in economic and market terms and, from an ecological perspective, referring to the environmental impacts of the activities of different institutions (Ehnert, 2009). However, the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED, 1987) provides a definition of sustainability that is coherent with the concept as it is used in this paper, referring to the action and development of organisations so that, when meeting the needs of the present, they do not compromise the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. More specifically, Elkington (1998) indicates three principles on which sustainable development is based: environmental integrity, social equity and economic prosperity, referred to as the Triple Bottom Line. Environmental integrity makes reference to an ecosystem’s limited regeneration capacity; social equity is linked to the right of all stakeholders to access resources, building transparent relationships that highlight the distribution of value creation; and economic prosperity pertains to the quality of life achieved through the productive capacity of organisations.