The role of HRM in developing sustainable organizations: Contemporary challenges and contradictions

Human Resource Management Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Human Resource Management Review journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/hrmr

The role of HRM in developing sustainable organizations: Contemporary challenges and contradictions ⁎

Nataliya Podgorodnichenko , Fiona Edgar, Ian McAndrew Department of Management, University of Otago, PO Box 56, Dunedin 9016, New Zealand

A R T IC LE I N F O

ABS TRA CT

Keywords: Human resource management Corporate social responsibility Sustainability Systematic literature review Paradox theory

Debates surrounding the concept of corporate social responsibility (CSR) suggest organizations need to pursue the objectives of a variety of stakeholders and human resource management (HRM), with its pluralist ideological underpinnings, is well-positioned to help in this endeavour. The dilemma for human resource (HR) practitioners is how best can engagement with the CSR agenda be achieved? This study addresses this question by drawing on data obtained through a systematic review of the literature (SRL). In doing so key roles undertaken by the HRM function as it works towards developing sustainable organizations are identified and the challenges that arise from the pursuit of divergent organizational goals are highlighted. This review concludes by first providing some sage advice to practitioners about how to navigate these contradictory objectives so that they can meaningfully impact on CSR efforts and second, by suggesting some directions for future research.

1. Introduction As with any other organizational function, human resource management (HRM) has to be able to develop approaches, policies and practices which respond to changes in the socio-political and economic environments as well as to the changing needs of business (Dulebohn, Ferris, & Stodd, 1995, p. 32). To support the credibility and legitimacy of the HRM function and to strengthen its own role within organizations, human resource (HR) professionals often seek to position themselves as organizational business partners (De Gama, McKenna, & Peticca-Harris, 2012; Ulrich & Brockbank, 2009; Wright, 2008) who actively support organizational strategy and promptly react to ever-changing business realities. Corporate social responsibility (CSR) and sustainability (a converging term) (Montiel, 2008; Sarvaiya & Wu, 2014) are one of the realities that organizations now need to respond to in order to be successful. As the ensuing discussion will show there are a variety of approaches and definitions for CSR and sustainability reported in the literature. For the purposes of this study we have grouped the terms CSR and Sustainability (a closely related concept) together, considering this broadened concept (i.e., CSR/S) to comprise those organizational activities that address the needs of different stakeholders – this may include, but is not limited to, shareholders, employees, communities, governments, natural environment, and future generations. Increasing interest in CSR/S in modern society is related to the growing pressure faced by organizations from customers, communities, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and governments, to become more responsible and to be more actively involved in the solution of social and environmental concerns (Moir, 2001; Smith, 2003). These issues include poverty, inequity, pandemics, natural disasters, and climate change, with impetus for organizational action and engagement with these issues stemming from the

⁎

Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (N. Podgorodnichenko).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2019.04.001 Received 30 June 2018; Received in revised form 5 February 2019; Accepted 2 April 2019 1053-4822/ © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Nataliya Podgorodnichenko, Fiona Edgar and Ian McAndrew, Human Resource Management Review, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2019.04.001

Human Resource Management Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

N. Podgorodnichenko, et al.

several quarters noted. At the societal level, business and other employing organizations are seen to be major contributors to many of these problems (Hamilton & Gioia, 2009) and while governments do try to mitigate this, they are not able to remedy them (Moir, 2001). At the organizational level, increased interest in CSR/S has been attributed to widespread recognition that this agenda has good branding potential, helping organizations generate competitive advantage (⁎Ledwidge, 2007; Banerjee, 2008) by making their products and services more desirable and appealing to potential customers in the marketplace. Some have also suggested that the need to secure vital resources required for long-term survival underpinned this organizational interest (Ehnert, 2009; Pogutz, Micale, & Winn, 2011). It is this situation which has prompted researchers to consider how best CSR/S agenda might be integrated into the strategic management processes of organizations (Asif, Searcy, Zutshi, & Fisscher, 2013; Rocha, Searcy, & Karapetrovic, 2007). A key contributor to the strategic management of any organization is the HRM function. Globally practitioners, supported by their professional associations (e.g., Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM), Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD), Australian Human Resource Institute (AHRI)), have recognized the need for HRM to be involved in CSR/S agendas, and this has led them to develop a plethora of best practice recommendations for effective engagement (Chartered Institute of Personnel Development, 2013, 2015; Cohen, Taylor, & Muller-Camen, 2012; SHRM, 2011). Alongside this practitioner interest, researchers in this field have also been calling for studies to investigate the links between CSR/S and HRM (⁎Jamali, El Dirani, & Harwood, 2015; Aguinis & Glavas, 2012; DeNisi, Wilson, & Biteman, 2014; Ehnert, 2009, 2014). In this regard, the HRM function seems ideally positioned to help organizations become more socially responsible because organizational sustainability is primarily hinged around the energy, knowledge and skills of the workforce which, when subject to investment, can lead to the attainment of the organization's environmental, social and economic goals (Hirsig, Rogovsky, & Elkin, 2014). Supporting this relationship, ⁎Schoemaker, Nijhof, and Jonker (2006) note that stakeholders often see CSR/S through the actions and behaviors of employees and, similarly, Ramachandran (2011) suggests that an organization's human and social capital are key prerequisites for strategic CSR/S. Based on these observations, it would seem HRM involvement is essential to the effective delivery of a CSR/S programme. HRM can engage with CSR/S from a variety of different perspectives. For HR professionals these could include such things as: the formulation of a CSR/S strategy, and recruitment of employees who have knowledge, experience and motivation to carry out required actions (⁎Davies & Crane, 2010; ⁎Guerci, Longoni, & Luzzini, 2016; ⁎Shen & Benson, 2016); effective socialisation of employees so that they embrace the CSR strategy and enact it in their work and possibly even home life (⁎Garavan, Heraty, Rock, & Dalton, 2010; ⁎Mirvis, 2012; ⁎Muster & Schrader, 2011; ⁎Shen & Benson, 2016); making improvements to CSR/S communication and strategically engaging employees in CSR activities (⁎Garavan et al., 2010; Collier & Esteban, 2007); and the inclusion of sustainability objectives into performance management and rewards systems so as to focus employees' attention on relevant goals/objectives (Hobelsberger, 2014). Moreover, when dealing with the workforce, HR professionals need to ensure that the implemented practices are ‘responsible’ per se and promote the sustainability of human resources and the communities in which their organizations operate (⁎Kramar, 2014; ⁎Mariappanadar, 2012; Ehnert, 2009; Mariappanadar, 2003). We believe this short overview of the potential ways in which the HRM function in organizations could be involved in CSR/S activities demonstrates not only the importance of developing our understanding of the CSR/S-HRM nexus but it also supports the need for further work in this area. While current research is heavily focused on the benefits both HRM and CSR/S gain from the integration of policies and practices, the tensions and challenges that are associated with this integration receive scant attention (⁎Guerci & Carollo, 2016; ⁎Voegtlin & Greenwood, 2016). We believe that discussions surrounding the integration of CSR/S and HRM may need to take into account the complexity of CSR/S strategy and the tensions associated with the need for organizations, and in our case the HRM function, to simultaneously pursue goals related to the different dimensions of the triple bottom-line (TBL) – i.e., social, economic, and environmental goals – which see them try to satisfy the requirements of a variety of diverse stakeholder groups. Tensions related to the contradictory needs of multiple stakeholders have been acknowledged in the CSR/S literature (Galuppo, Gorli, Scaratti, & Kaneklin, 2014; Hahn, Pinkse, Preuss, & Figge, 2015; Rocha et al., 2007) and these challenges are thought to inhibit some organizations from adopting a sustainable approach to business (Nidumolu, Prahalad, & Rangaswami, 2009). Thus, it would seem research which examines how organizational policies and practices might help organizations to simultaneously manage the interests of different stakeholder groups alongside the attainment of various sustainability goals is an area of some significance for HRM. Indeed, given that the inherent contradictions between the needs of employers and employees have been well-documented and addressed in the HRM literature (Francis & Keegan, 2006; Keegan & Francis, 2010; Marchington, 2015), HRM appears to be well positioned, ideologically at least, to contribute in a meaningful way to this conversation. We see a current and systematic literature review (SLR) as one way to address the issue of potential conflicts and challenges associated with CSR-HRM integration and to help with identifying the ways in which the HRM function might contribute to the resolution of these tensions. To achieve these goals, we first studied the literature devoted to the CSR/S-HRM nexus. This allowed us to identify the various roles undertaken by the HRM function when it integrates with a CSR/S agenda and also what policies and practices underpinned the operationalization of these roles. Next, we applied the lens of paradox theory to scrutinize these roles for potential conflicts and tensions. Finally, a second analysis of the literature was undertaken so that possible solutions to the recognized tensions could be surfaced. Arguably, we see this synthesis of the extant knowledge about CSR/S-HRM interaction as an essential prerequisite for further investigation in the field. Consequently, based around the SLR, we see three important areas requiring attention: (1) the identification of key roles HRM can play in the development of responsible and sustainable organizations, (2) reflection on challenges associated with the HRM engagement with CSR/S and (3) recognition of effective contemporary HRM approaches which have the systematic promotion of sustainability as their goal.

2

Human Resource Management Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

N. Podgorodnichenko, et al.

2. Methodology Different approaches to the analysis and synthesis of the extant literatures can be employed to stocktake knowledge, providing researchers with a comprehensive overview of the generalised frameworks and empirical findings available (see Denyer, Tranfield, & Van Aken, 2008 for an overview). Arguably, the most salient work for a stocktake is the systematic literature review. Literature reviews has long been considered one of the most efficacious means for providing the current state of research and practice in any field or subject and not surprisingly they are viewed as ‘a key research objective for the respective academic and practitioner communities’ (Tranfield, Denyer, & Smart, 2003, p. 207). By drawing on a larger of body literature comprising both theory and empiricism, the researcher is not constrained by specificity either in terms of variables or the testing of relationships between variables and thus the SLR can provide the field with snapshots of existing knowledge, insights into evolving nature of the field, concepts and approaches and, based on this evidence, proffer generalised frameworks for empirical examination. These attributes have meant SLRs are now being widely used in different fields to address a variety of research questions (Crisp, 2015; Crossan & Apaydin, 2010; Danese, Manfè, & Romano, 2018). The SLR complements this study's research objectives. This is because compared with the narrative approach, the SLR is able to more accurately identify patterns and ensure research rigor. The SLR method requires strict adherence to procedures for identifying data for analysis. Specifically, SLR sees the systematic application of inclusion and exclusion criteria used with a view to ensuring broad coverage of relevant literature while at the same time being consistent in its selection. These processes help ensure that bias, often associated with narrative reviews, is minimized (Tranfield et al., 2003). Notwithstanding, the SLR does have certain limitations. For example, the search strings used (Wang & Chugh, 2014) can limit the number of retrieved publications, the search boundaries can limit the scope of the literature to certain databases and the searching of papers published in a particular language, say English, has the potential to leave outside of scope a host of relevant literature which has been published in a different language. To overcome some of these potential issues we chose to source publications reported in journals identified in the Australian Business Deans Council (ABDC) list which includes journals from a variety of different databases. A number of synonymous key-words were used in the search string, with searches within entire articles being undertaken where possible, to mitigate issues with rigidity. To ensure consistency, quality and rigor in our research we followed the well-documented processes reported in previously published SLRs (e.g.Danese et al., 2018; Nolan & Garavan, 2016) as outlined in Fig. 1. 2.1. Conceptual boundaries The research started with the setting of objectives and formulation of the clear research questions, which could be addressed by the SLR. After the research questions had been formulated we followed by defining conceptual boundaries (Danese et al., 2018; Nolan & Garavan, 2016). This was seen as especially important given the number of the concepts related to CSR/S and discussed in the field. As the link between HRM and CSR/S is the focus of this research, basic key words for the search were ‘Sustainability’, ‘CSR’ and ‘HRM’. Some of the previous well-known SLR in the field of HRM and CSR/S (⁎Renwick, Jabbour, Muller-Camen, Redman, & Wilkinson, 2016; ⁎Renwick, Redman, & Maguire, 2013; ⁎Voegtlin & Greenwood, 2016) did not use the terms CSR and sustainability with respect to HRM in their search together. This situation is possibly explained by the ongoing uncertainty in the literature about the similarity of these two concepts and whether they could and/or should be used interchangeably. Notwithstanding, some researchers find that the two concepts have a tendency to converge and consequently it is appropriate to view them as interchangeable (⁎Jabbour & Santos, 2008; Montiel, 2008; Sarvaiya & Wu, 2014). We have chosen to consider the concepts CSR and sustainability together in order to widen the scope of the search and to ensure the inclusion of relevant publications in our analysis, thus affording an extensive overview of the HRM role. Giving further consideration to the appropriateness of using both terms in the SLR analysis, after the retrieval and filtering of the articles, we analyzed how both terms were used and defined in the HRM literature to discern whether there were significant differences in their interpretations that would prevent us from treating them as synonymous (the results of this analysis are presented in our findings section). Country and cultural difference is important to a study of this nature. Previous research by ⁎Ehnert, Parsa, Roper, Wagner, and Muller-Camen (2016) reported no significant country or cultural differences in approaches to CSR/S-related HRM practices in their study of MNEs from liberal (‘Anglo-Saxon’ countries) and coordinated (Continental Europe and Japan) market economies with countries form BRIC cluster and South European mixed economies (e.g. Spain, Italy, France) used as control variables. Our study also draws on the research conducted in different countries and while the SLR is limited to English language articles, many of these have examined the CSR/S-HRM nexus across a variety of different country and cultural contexts. Specifically, 60 papers in the SLR reported the countries where the research had been conducted. Of these 11 studies reported undertaking the research using multiple countries, with 10 being conducted in China, six in Australia, Spain, and the UK, three used samples from Germany, Italy, Finland, and the USA, two were conducted in France and there was one study each from Canada, Denmark, Lithuania, Malaysia, Netherlands, New Zealand, and Romania. 2.2. Data collection and analysis 2.2.1. Inclusion criteria The first step in data collection relates to the establishment of inclusion criteria and search boundaries (Wang & Chugh, 2014). For this SLR journals from the ABDC list published in English language were selected. Although this inclusion criteria limits the scope of the study, journal rankings and peer-review improve rigor by ensuring only quality studies are assessed (Colicchia & Strozzi, 2012; 3

Human Resource Management Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

N. Podgorodnichenko, et al.

Setting the research objectives: (1) The identification of key roles HRM can play in the development of responsible and sustainable organizations, (2) Reflection on challenges associated with the HRM engagement with CSR/S (3) Recognition of effective contemporary HRM approaches which have the systematic promotion of sustainability as their goal .

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Defining conceptual boundaries: Concepts used in search – CSR, sustainability Various definitions of CSR/S – including stakeholder management perspective, triple bottom-line, intergenerational equity; environmental sustainability Broad theoretical perspective – Stakeholder theory, RBV, AMO, social identification, etc. Different cultural settings – research conducted in different countries

Setting inclusion criteria Search boundaries: Academic journals from ABDC list A and A* management journals Specialised journals (HRM, employment relations, CSR) without consideration of ranking

Covered period: 2000-2017 (first 6 months) Language of publication: English

Search string: (CSR OR “Corporate Social Responsibility” OR “Corporate Social Performance” OR “Corporate citizenship” OR Sustainability OR Sustainable) AND (HRM OR “Human Resource Management” OR “Human resource” OR “Personnel management”)

3677 articles

Applying exclusion criteria: Articles retrieved, using partial search string and search within the whole text

Validating search results: Repeating the search and title-based filtering step with the time lag

483 articles Applying exclusion criteria Articles that did not focus on CSR/SArticles that discussed impact of CSR on HRM integration and HRM role in CSR/S employees (attrition, engagement, (318) retention) without mentioning of HRM policies and practices (46)

Not research papers (8) Articles that used term ‘sustainability’ only in economic context (3)

108 articles

Fig. 1. A summary of SLR process (adapted from Danese et al., 2018; Nolan & Garavan, 2016).

Crossan & Apaydin, 2010). Focusing first on journal quality (Danese et al., 2018) we selected journals which were highly ranked in the ABDC list (i.e. A and A*). Next, within this list, the scope of the journals were limited to Management and Human resource/ Employment relations as these comprise the main outlets for CSR/S-HRM related publications. In line with the recommendation of Danese et al. (2018), to ensure search completeness some additional journals were added to the list. These included specialist academic journals (without consideration of quality ranking) devoted to CSR, sustainability, corporate citizenship, HRM, human resource development (HRD), or employment relations. In the next step the time period of the review was established. Publications in journals for the period 2000–2017 (first six months only) were selected. Justification for using this time period is based on study findings by Aguinis and Glavas (2012) who identified a significant increase in articles devoted to CSR after 2005 and the work of ⁎Simmons (2008) who noted that the CSR concept became an important research topic early in the 21st century, with the more refined topic of sustainable HRM becoming prominent more recently (⁎Kramar, 2014). Finally, the search string was developed so that it could be systematically applied to the search within each journal chosen for the review. Not to limit the scope of the search we included similar concepts often reported together in the CSR and sustainability literatures in the search string. For example, CSR, Corporate Social Performance, Corporate Social Responsiveness, and Corporate Citizenship are considered to be sister concepts (Wood, 2010); while sustainability is often discussed in conjunction with sustainable development, corporate sustainability, or environmental sustainability (e.g. Montiel, 2008). In a similar vein we selected a number of synonymous terms to search for HRM. As a result, our search equation was based on two strings; the first addressed CSR and its related concepts; while the second addressed HRM and its related concepts. The resultant search equation was as follows: (CSR OR “Corporate Social Responsibility” OR “Corporate Social Performance” OR “Corporate citizenship” OR Sustainability OR Sustainable) AND (HRM OR “Human Resource Management” OR “Human resource” OR “Personnel management”). We also separately ran a search for ‘Green HRM’ OR ‘Green Human Resource Management’ to decrease the number of retrievals 4

Human Resource Management Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

N. Podgorodnichenko, et al.

which appear when ‘Green’ is included as a separate word in the search string. As some of the journals were specifically devoted to either HRM or CSR/S, when searching within these journals only one string from the equation was used to diminish the likelihood of omission (e.g., if the search was done within the HRM journal only the CSR/S component of the search equation was applied). In applying the exclusion criteria, as we were interested in how the HRM role in developing sustainable and responsible organizations has been debated in the literature and how HRM practices have been used to operationalize this role, both theoretical and empirical papers were included. However, editorials, book reviews, articles limited to the economic aspects of sustainability or where CSR/S and HRM integration was not a main focus of the research, along with articles addressing the direct impact of CSR/S on employees (e.g., attraction, commitment, engagement) were excluded. The initial search resulted in 3677 articles. This large number of articles is attributable to the concurrent use of a range of search engines and databases (e.g., EBSCO, ProQuest, Emerald, Science Direct, JSTOR, Gale Cengage) and searching within the whole text where possible. Different search engines and databases have different principles of work with the search strings. Some take the full string and accurately apply it for the whole search, while others employ a two-step process whereby the first step sees the retrieval of the most relevant papers based on the full string and the second step identifies less relevant items based on a search using only parts of the string. Moreover, many of the articles were deemed irrelevant because although the full texts contained words from the string, these words were not related to each other. All the retrieved articles were downloaded in Endnote and filtered, first based on their title, then on the abstract, and finally on the full-text. Title-based filtering allowed us to exclude the large numbers of articles which had been retrieved using the partial search string application or search within the whole text noted above. To validate the search and filtering processes the process was repeated with a time lag. This filtering process saw the total number of articles to be reviewed decrease from 3677 to 483 (see Appendix 1). For stage two the abstracts of articles, and in cases of ambiguity whole articles, were read and this was the sample of articles reduced from 483 to 108. This is a large decrease and it resulted from the filtering out of papers that (a) did not focus on either the CSR/SHRM interface or the role of HRM in developing responsible and sustainable organizations (318); (b) discussed the impact of CSR on employees (attrition, engagement, retention) but did not mention HRM policies and practices (46); (c) were editorials (8 papers); and (d) used the term sustainability but only in an economic context (3). Next, we compared the final list of articles to those articles devoted to CSR/S-HRM integration that had been compiled by one of the researchers during the narrative literature review phase to ensure that key writings published in ABDC journals had not been omitted during the search process. All 108 articles were then read and coded using NVivo11. The aim was to identify key themes from the literature related to HRM's role when developing responsible and sustainable organizations or practices. A member of the research team, with academic and professional expertise in the CSR/S and HRM areas, coded data related to CSR/S definitions, theories, the nature of CSR/S-HRM interface and HRM operationalization. To enhance the coding rigor, several procedures were applied. The first involved a dual coding process. This entailed an initial coding and categorising of data for analysis, with each code accompanied by explanation about how data was ascribed to it. After a period of two months, the data was re-coded by the same researcher. This process provided an opportunity for the researcher to check and refine coding categories and to identify new sub-codes. Since the correlation between first- and second-time coding was 0.71, it indicated the need for analysis of the accuracy of all initial codes. All coded texts were reread and compared and as a result some codes were refined. For example, the initial code ‘several roles’ was divided into ‘hybrid’ model’, ‘creating organisational context’, and ‘developing holistic approach’, after that all texts were re-coded. Second, a member of the research team retrieved all codes with their ascribed text segments from NVivo11 and checked these for coherency and consistency (Lerman & Smith, 2016). A final step to ensure accuracy of coding saw a colleague, independent of the research team, with knowledge in CSR/S and HRM read through the coded data to check for consistency in coding. This independent check pointed to the need to further refine coding of CSR/S definitions. The colleague highlighted the need to differentiate between definitions focusing on stakeholders and those underscoring organizational responsibilities beyond legal and economic suggesting that these different definitions might be underpinned by different theoretical perspectives. A more detailed picture of the coding process and code descriptions are presented in Appendices 2 and 3. The findings from the data analyses are now presented. 3. Findings 3.1. Using concepts and theories in CSR/S-HRM research The first stage of our SLR explored whether the concepts of CSR and sustainability, as they relate to HRM research, can be treated as synonymous. If these terms do appear to be synonymous, we would then be able to group articles together regardless of their foci. To make this assessment, definitions provided in the articles were analyzed to identify distinctiveness or similarity in terminology. To do this all available definitions were coded, with codes clustered into categories (see Appendix 2 for details). Here we found 86 articles to have definitions. The results of this analysis is presented in Fig. 2. The distribution of articles suggests HRM is more closely related to CSR than it is to sustainability and this is possibly due to the strong connection that exists between CSR and social and human capital aspects (Montiel, 2008; Sarvaiya & Wu, 2014). It was also found that an increasing number of papers discussing sustainability appeared after 2011 and this supports commentaries which suggest there has been recent growth in cross-disciplinary sustainability research (Elsevier, 2015). The plethora of content covered in current definitions reported in the literature devoted to the HRM–CSR/S nexus shows that, at this stage at least, HRM research does not treat CSR and sustainability as discreet and distinctive concepts, with some of the articles providing multiple definitions of the same concept while concurrently alluding to the concepts of TBL, stakeholder responsibilities, 5

Human Resource Management Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

N. Podgorodnichenko, et al.

CSR/S concepts and definitions

CSR (51)

TBL (16) Responsibilities beyond legal and economic (12) Responsibilities to various stakeholders (10) Several definitions (1) Other (4) Not defined (8)

Sustainability (27)

TBL (14) Responsibilities beyond legal and economic (1) Environmental goals (1) Other (7) Not defined (4)

Environmental performance (14)

CSR and Sustainability (11)

Sustainability and Environmental performance (4)

Ethics (1)

Environmental goals (6) Not defined (7) Other (1)

TBL (4) Several definitions (4) Other (2) Not defined (1)

TBL (2) Environmental goals (1) Not defined (1)

Not defined (1)

Fig. 2. CSR/S concepts and definitions.

and continuity (see for example De Prins, Van Beirendonck, De Vos, & Segers, 2014). Thus, it was concluded that all the 108 articles selected for the purposes of current research could be analyzed together. Second, we identified those theories that were most commonly applied in research looking at the CSR/S-HRM relationship. Out of the 108 analyzed articles, only 58 clearly stipulated the theory used, with the remaining 50 articles not making any explicit mention of a particular theoretical background. The most commonly applied theory was stakeholder theory which was reported in 18 studies. This was followed by the resource based view (RBV) (11 studies) and AMO theory1 (5 studies). Articles that used CSR as a main concept or used the CSR and sustainability terms together mostly utilized stakeholder theory (13 articles). Articles that used either sustainability or environmental performance as the primary concept primarily used RBV (9 articles). These findings are consistent with the findings of Montiel (2008). Only two articles drew on paradox theory2 and we see this as symptomatic of an overall lack of attention being afforded to the tensions and challenges present in the CSR-HRM integration literature. The next phase of the SLR concerned the coding and analyzing of data related to the roles played by HRM in organizations as they pursue the development of responsible and sustainable policies and practices. Several HRM roles connected to this agenda were identified and these are now discussed (a summary of the main roles is presented in Fig. 3).

1 The AMO model proposes that where HR practices are designed so as to enhance employees' ability, motivation and opportunities to contribute, performance outcomes will ensue (Boxall & Purcell, 2003). The CSR/S-HRM literature employing AMO framework looks at how the HRM function can create policies and practices geared specifically towards developing employees' CSR/S-related capabilities and fostering their motivation and providing them with opportunities to contribute towards the attainment of CSR/S goals. An illustrative example drawn from Renwick et al. (2013) identifies practices which foster CSR/S abilities as comprising such things as the recruitment of employees with CSR/S knowledge and values or developing these knowledge and values through specialized training; practices related to motivation include the fostering of emotional attachment to CSR/S via training initiatives or the linking of performance goals and rewards to CSR/S outcomes; and for opportunities, practices introducing CSR-related suggestions schemes and problem-solving groups are noted. 2 Paradox theory is concerned with how organizations respond to competing demands (e.g. exploration vs exploitation; change vs structure), with these demands viewed as being both inherent in organizational logic and strongly interdependent (Smith & Tracey, 2016). The CSR/S-HRM literature focuses on the paradoxical tensions in HRM which are explicated by the introduction of the CSR/S concept. For example, Kozica and Kaiser (2012) analyzed the paradoxical tensions inherent in flexibility approaches to HRM (e.g. the conflict between efficiency orientation and substance orientation – the former dictates employment of a contingent workforce or promotes multi-tasking, whereas the latter places an emphasis on maintaining the well-being of the workforce and providing regenerative work). They argue that the lens of paradox theory offers a more comprehensive view on flexible HRM practices and affords recognition of the various consequences of flexibility initiatives that need to be addressed in order to support human and economic sustainability.

6

Human Resource Management Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

N. Podgorodnichenko, et al.

HRM roles

Strategic support role Enabling achievement of organizational CSR/Sustainability goals

Recruitment and selection Training and development Performance management Reward and remuneration Internal communication Employee voice-giving

Employee advocate role

Social support role

Responsible practices towards employees

Developing sustainable workforce

Diversity and Inclusion Work-life balance Well-being Employability, job security, career management

Regeneration of talent Development of early talent Employee engagement Well-being Work-life balance

Accounting for externalities created by the HRM practices

Harmful index Reducing spill-over effects

Resolving social issues

Training and employment for lowskilled workers and minority groups Life-long learning to support employability Responsible workforce outsourcing

Fig. 3. HRM roles in developing sustainable and responsible organizations.

3.2. HRM roles in CSR/S 3.2.1. The strategic support role This HRM role is based on the strategic partner role of HRM (Ulrich, 2013) but with a specific focus on the facilitation of achievement of environmental and social goals in addition to organizations' traditional economic goals (e.g., ⁎Christina, Dainty, Daniels, Tregaskis, & Waterson, 2017; ⁎Haddock-Millar, Sanyal, & Müller-Camen, 2016; Benn, Teo, & Martin, 2015). The SLR found nearly one third of articles (31) discussed the importance of the role of HRM in supporting the delivery of the organization's CSR/S strategy and commitments. This role was particularly salient in articles which addressed environmental performance as well as those that combined the concepts of environmental performance with sustainability (93% and 100% of those articles respectively emphasized this role). The strategic support role in CSR/S endeavours has been well discussed in the HRM literature, with this work describing how the HRM role can be best utilized to support CSR/S strategic initiatives and thus assist organizations to achieve their goals towards a variety of different stakeholder groups, some of whom will reside outside of the organization. In assuming this role, HRM is striving to ensure that the CSR/S goals are delivered by the employees and organization as a whole. These studies revealed that the main foci of this role for the HR professional was to ensure employees' abilities were sufficiently developed, their motivation was enhanced and they were afforded appropriate opportunities, thus enabling successful attainment of the organization's CSR/S agenda. To achieve this, the HR professional was required to adapt traditional HRM policies and practices from the functional domains of recruitment and selection, training and development, performance management and internal communication. Examples of this adaptation for a variety of functional areas are now highlighted. For recruitment and selection, organizations would be encouraged to hire employees with CSR/S-related values, experience, skills, and attitudes (⁎DuBois & Dubois, 2012; ⁎Guerci et al., 2016; ⁎Guerci & Carollo, 2016). The reviewed literature emphasized the need to consider in recruitment and staffing activities candidates' awareness and attitudes towards CSR/S, as well as personal CSR/S values viewing them as important for the achievement of organizational CSR/S objectives (⁎Renwick et al., 2013; ⁎Tang, Chen, Jiang, Paillé, & Jia, 2017). Although outside the remit of this SLR, the psychological micro-foundations for employees' engagement with CSR/S are actively under investigation. These studies are concerned with how instrumental (e.g. self-concern, need for power and control, need in extrinsic rewards), relational (e.g. need for net-working and recognition), moral (e.g., concerns for environment and society, personal values), and other individual (e.g. self-evaluation, consciousness, narcissism) characteristics can act as drivers for CSR engagement (for a more detailed overview of the psychological drivers of CSR/S see Gond, El Akremi, Swaen, & Babu, 2017). Illustrative of this body of research is Kim, Kim, Han, Jackson, and Ployhart's (2014) study which demonstrated that consciousness can positively influence engagement in pro-environmental behaviour by impacting moral reflections about the environment. Along 7

Human Resource Management Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

N. Podgorodnichenko, et al.

with the aforementioned indicators, employees' knowledge, skills, and experience in CSR/S have also been discussed to influence their proclivity to be involved in CSR/S (Boudreau & Ramstad, 2005; ⁎Jamali et al., 2015). This body of work has prompted some to suggest that HR professionals should consider these characteristics during the recruitment stage in conjunction with other skills, knowledge, experience, and attitudes required by the position. The reviewed literature also suggests that to strategically support CSR/S agenda in organizations the HRM function needs to integrate CSR/S into other policies. Thus, training and development practices would be designed to help create and develop CSR/S knowledge, skills and competences among employees (⁎Guerci et al., 2016; ⁎Guerci & Carollo, 2016; ⁎Haddock-Millar et al., 2016). For example, ⁎Stolz and Mclean (2009) suggested that to support CSR/S initiatives of organizations middle managers need to be equipped with such skills as “knowledge of process structure principles, group dynamics, understanding of both the task environment and the team's technology, and the ability to intervene in the team to help” (p. 185), while employees need to develop their networking and communication skills as well as their professional skills to support CSR/S innovations. ⁎Garavan and McGuire (2010) propose that employees' skills of communication with various stakeholders and understanding the influence of organizational activities on society should be emphasized in developmental initiatives. Again, outside the remit of this SLR Stubbs and Schapper (2011) point to research, analytical, communication, negotiation, and change management skills as relevant to CSR/S and required to be included in CSR/S curriculum. Decisions about particular skills need to be based on organization's CSR/S goals, requirements of each particular role, and extent of each employee's involvement with CSR/S (for some positions CSR/S-related activities may be core (CSR manager, engineer, or designer) while for others they may be more peripheral (office clerk) thus placing less emphasis on CSR skills). For performance management, the focus would be on directing employees' attention to CSR/S goals supporting sustainable/ responsible behaviour in this area (⁎Christina et al., 2017; ⁎DuBois & Dubois, 2012; ⁎Haddock-Millar et al., 2016) by setting CSR/Srelated metrics as well as benchmarks. For reward and recognition, practices which promoted and reinforced delivery of CSR/S goals by managers and employees would be employed (⁎Knudsen, Geisler, & Ege, 2013; ⁎Lothe & Myrtveit, 2003); and for internal communication, both top-down communication and employee voice-giving practices would be used to engage employees with CSR/S objectives and to give them opportunities for input into the development and attainment of CSR/S goals (⁎DuBois & Dubois, 2012; ⁎Guerci & Carollo, 2016; Benn et al., 2015). For HRM to be efficacious in supporting a CSR/S strategy, the goals of this joint endeavour need to be explicitly articulated in the organization's business strategy and management need to afford them the same level of legitimacy as more traditional profit-oriented goals (⁎Christina et al., 2017). The workforce are more likely to be engaged with CSR/S and the HRM function has more legitimacy to promote it when CSR/S comprises an integral part of the management system and where its goals are embedded in the job descriptions of both managers and employees (⁎Christina et al., 2017). These explicit initiatives do not, however, obviate the importance of employees' discretionary behavior (Boiral, 2009; Paillé, Boiral, & Chen, 2013). Indeed, it is noteworthy that this SLR identified a number of articles addressing the relationship between CSR and organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB). OCB is discretionary employee behaviour which makes a positive contribution to organizational effectiveness, but which is not directed by the job description nor recognized by the formal rewarding system (Organ, Podsakoff, & MacKenzie, 2006). Illustrative of this work are the studies by ⁎Newman, Miao, Hofman, and Zhu (2016) and ⁎Zhang, Di Fan, and Zhu (2014) which found CSR to positively impact employees' OCB. Moreover, and somewhat related to our earlier discussion on the importance of employee characteristics, ⁎Arnaud and Wasieleski (2014) suggest that OCB could be considered an important pre-requisite to employees' active involvement in CSR. It could also be argued that those more externally motivated, formalized mechanisms for employees' engagement with the CSR/S agenda may not necessarily transpire in optimal outcomes. This is because employees', and in particular Millennials, are likely to also be intrinsically motivated to pursue this agenda and thus their informal and voluntary behaviors will also have potential to influence success of the CSR/S agenda. In this sense CSR/S-related OCB could be harnessed by the organization to compliment and to support its more formal initiatives. This is a sentiment shared by Paillé et al. (2013), who suggested that employees' citizenship behaviour related to environmental sustainability be promoted and supported by organizations so as to ensure the achievement of CSR/S objectives. In sum, the aforementioned discussion surrounding CSR/S-related HRM policies and practices has shown that the HRM function, through its ability to influence recruitment, selection, rewards and performance management, could be utilized to support a CSR/S agenda. We have argued that the CSR/S strategic partner role considers employees to be a pivotal force in the delivery of an organization's CSR/S agenda, and as such the organization's HRM policies and practices should be geared to meet this end. However, caution is required here. Technical competencies should not become subservient to value congruence, but rather we advocate for a coherent suite of initiatives which afford consideration to both. In pursuing this ideology the opportunity for successfully achieving CSR/S goals should be maximized and the scope for litigation subverted. 3.2.2. The employee advocate role The employee advocate role sees employees as an important organizational stakeholder with respect to CSR/S strategy and as such the focus for the HR professional is on the development and implementation of responsible and sustainable HRM policies and practices which support the interests and needs of employees. We found 27 articles that considered this to be a primary responsibility for HRM when pursuing a CSR/S agenda. Although this role could not be linked to a particular definition of CSR/S, it was generally associated with an ethos which recognized the organizational responsibilities extended beyond those of just shareholders. For the HR professional, initiatives which addressed this role included the provision of an inclusive environment, the promotion of equality, diversity (⁎Demuijnck, 2009; ⁎Gellert & Graaf, 2012; ⁎Lis, 2012) and labour rights (⁎Ehnert et al., 2016; ⁎Fuentes-García, 8

Human Resource Management Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

N. Podgorodnichenko, et al.

Núñez-Tabales, & Veroz-Herradón, 2008; ⁎Preuss, Haunschild, & Matten, 2009). Initiatives also extended to address employees' wellbeing and work-life balance (⁎Apostol & Näsi, 2014; ⁎Celma, Martínez-Garcia, & Coenders, 2014), as well as their employability, job security, and development of a sustainable career (⁎Apostol & Näsi, 2014; ⁎Waring & Lewer, 2004; Cornelius, Todres, Janjuha-Jivraj, Woods, & Wallace, 2008). The focus of the remaining articles was on HRM's role in promoting and developing a sustainable workforce. This was addressed through talent management with a particular emphasis on the continual regeneration and refreshment of talent and ensuring the availability of talent in communities (⁎App, Merk, & Büttgen, 2012). A further focus of this literature saw HRM needing to assume some responsibility for diminishing the negative effects on employees from some of the tensions inherent in some HRM practices (⁎Mariappanadar & Kramar, 2014). Similarly to the strategy role, these articles saw the explicit tailoring of traditional policies and practices as the means to achieving this objective. 3.2.3. The social support role The social support role and the employee advocate role are similar insofar as the needs of employees lie at their core. However, while both roles focus on the needs of employees, the social support role additionally emphasizes HRM's ability to influence factors in the internal and the external contexts of the organization. Given this overlap, at first glance, the HRM practices adopted by the two roles do appear similar. On closer scrutiny, it becomes apparent that there is a key difference in who is assumed to be the focal stakeholder of these practices. For the employee advocate role the needs of employees are the primary concern. Consequently, little consideration is afforded to how the design of HRM initiatives might benefit external stakeholders. This can be contrasted with the social support role, where the needs of the community are the primary concern. Illustrative of how these differing foci have been addressed in prior work, the employee advocate role might see employee development practices discussed in terms of their benefits to employees (e.g., helping employees to familiarize and identify with the organization (⁎App et al., 2012)), while the social support role might instead focus on their impact on the community (e.g., reducing social costs by developing the capabilities of low-skilled/ low-paid employees (⁎Devins & Gold, 2014)). The social role of HRM has been discussed in the extant HRM literature (e.g., Baek & Kim, 2014) and given society is also an important organizational stakeholder for CSR/S, its emergence as an important dimension in this nexus was not surprising. We were surprised to find only 8 articles in our SLR emphasizing this role. In addition, discussion of the impact HRM might have outside of the organization was found in several articles whose goal was to present a model of sustainable/responsible HRM (e.g., ⁎Jamali et al., 2015; ⁎Kramar, 2014; De ⁎ et al., 2014). Of the 8 articles which explicitly addressed the social role, 4 alluded to the side-effects of the HRM practices that can occur if organizations focus solely on profitability goals, neglecting the impact of practices and decisions on employees and the social environment. These articles specifically emphasized the need for HRM to develop policies and practices that minimized the negative impact the pursuit of organizational goals had on employees, their families, and the community (⁎Au & Ahmed, 2014; ⁎Mariappanadar, 2012; Mariappanadar, 2003). The authors discussed how some HRM practices (e.g., redundancies, job intensification, work inflexibility) can negatively affect not only employees, but also their families who may suffer from the spill-over effects (e.g., a lack of attention, reduced participation of family members in family activities, child neglect, alcohol abuse, family violence, low income), and also the communities in which they live (e.g., lack of engagement in community life, costs associated with divorce, re-training/re-employment, mental health issues). This research called for more HRM cognizance about the side-effects of its policies and practices and also the need for these to be developed with a genuine respect for family and community needs. The second group of articles dedicated to HRM's social role scrutinized HRM's policies and practices with a view to highlighting the role HRM may play in addressing pending social issues. These authors argued that in considering organizational CSR/S commitments, the HRM function may need to address issues of social imbalance. To do this, it was suggested policies and practices should be developed with a view to ensuring such things as access to training and employment for low-skilled and low-paid workers and minority groups (⁎Devins & Gold, 2014; ⁎Wilcox, 2006); the promotion of life-long learning to support employability (⁎Packer & Sharrar, 2003); and ensuring social responsibility when engaging in outsourcing, part-time work and agency work practices (⁎Zhang, Bartram, McNeil, & Dowling, 2015). The social support role of HRM is an important one as it shows the broader impact of HRM policies and practices and the potential for the HRM function to have influence outside of the organization. Strategic HRM research suggests there is a need for HR professionals to consider organizations and their environments thus this might quell the over-emphasis placed on internal elements (Marchington, 2015; Schuler & Jackson, 2014; Ulrich & Dulebohn, 2015). We see the social support role as an effective means for HRM to achieve this as performance in this role also requires cooperation with different external stakeholders such as governments, NGOs, and educational institutions. However, given only 8 articles out of the 108 analyzed applied a specific focus on this role, with the majority of these being theoretical, achieving this dual focus may still be a long way off. 3.2.4. The hybrid model Among the 108 reviewed articles, we identified 17 which discussed the need for the HR professional to perform several roles simultaneously should they wish to integrate the function with CSR/S. We refer to this as the hybrid model and notably, no one combination was presented, rather different combinations of roles were mooted. Most, however, combined strategy with the employee advocate role (e.g., ⁎Newman et al., 2016; ⁎Zappalà, 2004; De Prins et al., 2014). In performing the hybrid role HRM addresses the needs of a variety of stakeholders, while at the same time contributing to some of the TBL dimensions. These authors propose an approach which sees the simultaneous enactment of these multiple roles through a series of HRM policies and practices. These articles postulate that the HRM function is well-positioned to support the multiplicity of foci embedded in CSR/S objectives. 9

Human Resource Management Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

N. Podgorodnichenko, et al.

This hybrid model seems to be essential for the HRM involvement in CSR/S given the complexity of the agenda and its simultaneous orientation to the needs of various stakeholders or setting goals pertaining to all three circles of the TBL. Therefore, it is not surprising that some researchers considered this model as a logical next step in the evolutionary development of the HRM function (⁎Jamali et al., 2015; ⁎Kramar, 2014; De Prins et al., 2014 ). However, some also cautioned that in pursuing this complex agenda, HRM would become susceptible to the tensions and challenges often associated with balancing of divergent goals (⁎Kramar, 2014). Thus, the hybrid model inevitably requires consideration of how policies and practices developed to support one dimension of a TBL or to meet the needs of one particular stakeholder group might impact on other TBL dimensions or other stakeholder groups. Unfortunately, the possible tensions and consequently the ways for their reconciliations are not sufficiently addressed in the current HRM literature. Moreover, there is a tendency in the literature to avoid discussion of the paradoxical tensions and/or challenges which may ensue for the HRM function from pursuit of a CSR/S agenda (⁎Guerci & Carollo, 2016; ⁎Voegtlin & Greenwood, 2016). This is perhaps unsurprising given the overall limited research on CSR/S-related tensions (Hahn, Figge, Pinkse, & Preuss, 2018). However, for progress, these tensions need to first be explicated and, second, reconciled. In terms of explication, these tensions relate to the need for the HRM function to perform various roles and concurrently pursue an organizational agenda which encompasses financial, social and environmental objectives. Therefore, in integrating HRM with CSR/S the HR professional becomes susceptible to role- as well as goal-conflict and thus there is a need to develop an approach which resolves these tensions. Drawing on paradox theory we first explicate some of the potential tensions and then, by synthesizing our findings, provide some possible solutions for these tensions. 3.3. CSR/S-related challenges and tensions Lewis (2000) describes paradox as ‘contradictory yet interrelated elements – elements that seem logical in isolation but absurd and irrational when appearing simultaneously’ (p. 760). Interestingly, it is thought that these contradictory but interrelated elements have a tendency to persist and even strengthen over time if ignored (Smith & Lewis, 2011). The alternatives in the paradox are so interrelated that the pursuit of one possibility at the expense of another makes salient that the alternative now also requires action (Lewis, 2000). In comparison to the dilemma, there is no either/or choice with a paradox; although based on tensions between opposing poles, attempts to achieve one alternative while ignoring another cannot be successful. Indeed, the more one option is pursued the more obvious becomes the demand for the other alternative to be present. Due to the nature of paradoxical tensions their resolution is more an act of embracing and accommodating to them rather one-time activity, which is able to bring the tensions to an end. Hahn, Figge, Pinkse, and Preuss (2018) underscore the presence of paradoxical tensions in the CSR/S agenda, noting that this type of strategy presents the organization with conflicting, but still highly interdependent, goals and objectives requiring equal attention. Indeed, organizations can't pursue financial goals at the expense of natural resources and social wellbeing, as this strategy will inevitably jeopardize organizational ability to achieve its financial goals due to lack of resources and absence of the ‘licence to operate’. The inability to recognize the paradoxical nature of CSR/S might prevent those actors involved from making a meaningful contribution to sustainable development (Hahn et al., 2018). Further, it is well-documented in the literature that the HRM function itself is susceptible to its own tensions which stem from the need to concurrently perform various roles (Keegan & Francis, 2010; Steers, 2008). This situation has led some to conclude that there will inevitably be tensions and conflicts should both functions become integrated (⁎Guerci & Carollo, 2016). Several authors have drawn attention to the presence of paradoxical tensions in sustainable HRM and, moreover, have highlighted a need to develop approaches to cope with these tensions (⁎Kozica & Kaiser, 2012; ⁎Kramar, 2014; Ehnert, 2009, 2014). To address this, we first discuss the types of paradoxes relevant to CSR/S integration and then explore the approaches the HRM function could utilize to make a meaningful contribution to resolving these paradoxes. Our analysis of the literature surfaces two types of tensions which may be faced by HR professionals: tensions between the HRM roles played in relation to pursuit of a CSR/S agenda which can be viewed as an amplification of already existing tensions between HRM roles; and tensions between organizational goals connected to CSR/S. Based on the work of Lewis (2000) and Smith and Lewis (2011), hereinafter we will refer to the first type of tensions experienced by HR professionals as a paradox of ‘belonging’ and to the second as a paradox of ‘performing’. The former reflects the tensions among multiple identities, competing roles, values, and memberships; while the latter represents tensions among various goals and objectives related to stakeholders' needs and interests (Smith & Lewis, 2011). These tensions are now discussed in more depth and HRM approaches to their resolution are considered. 3.3.1. Paradox of belonging The HRM literature is abundant with discussion of the multiple roles HR professionals are required to perform in organizations (see for example, Ulrich, 2013). HRM is considered essentially pluralist with HR professionals having to navigate objectives related to both the organization and the workforce. This duality in roles can create challenges for the HRM function which, based on preferences, can result in the elevation of one role and the subjugation of others. In this regard Watson (2007) and Wright (2008) note that HR professionals are often driven by a desire to secure their roles within the organization and to acquire legitimacy; these aspects emphasize the strategic partner role and the added value HRM can bring to the organization and its shareholders through the effective management of the employees. Pursuit of this often means the role of employee advocate, which involves the HR professional championing the needs of the workforce, is overlooked. The result is that the needs of the workforce become relegated so that they are subservient to those of the organization; the HR professional becomes blind to the impact HRM practices have on employees 10

Human Resource Management Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

N. Podgorodnichenko, et al.

(Keegan & Francis, 2010; Sheehan, De Cieri, Greenwood, & Van Buren, 2014; Van Buren, Greenwood, & Sheehan, 2011). Indeed, Guest and Woodrow (2012) suggest that in strategically focused organizations, HR practices that are aimed at promoting employee well-being and protection can be viewed pejoratively – essentially seen as syphoning money away from the important, core organizational objectives which are more financially oriented. To avoid this discordance, and to retain their position of status legitimacy within the organization, HR professionals tend to subjugate employees' interests (Guest & Woodrow, 2012). Empirical support for this situation can be found in a study by Van Buren et al. (2011) which showed that HR managers who were members of AHRI clearly felt the tensions between employee and shareholder orientations. This study found that while HR professionals recognized the importance of employees to the organization, they nonetheless preferred to focus their attention on the strategic role. Further support can be found in Boldizzoni and Quaratino (2011) study of Italian HR professionals in which no support was found for the presence of the employee champion role in their organizations. A discursive analysis of HR practitioners' interviews in the UK conducted by Keegan and Francis (2010) showed that most see their role in terms of it being a strategic or business partner role(s) as opposed to it being an employee champion/advocate role. Greenwood (2013) observes that mainstream approaches to HRM both in academia and in practice are based on resource-based notions (Barney, 1991) whereby people are seen as resources which should be properly managed to achieve organizational objectives. This is a view consistent with findings from De Gama et al.' (2012) discursive analysis of interviews with HR managers and Bondarouk and Brewster's (2016) claim that ‘HRM specialists have almost universally accepted the perspective of the single stakeholder (owner) for their subject’ (p.6). These examples all serve to illustrate the presence of paradoxical tensions between the HRM roles. There are reasons to suggest that pursuit of a CSR/S agenda may amplify the role conflict described above. This is because the CSR/S agenda makes the employee advocate role of the HRM function more salient; requiring HR professionals to treat employees as both important organizational stakeholders and a valuable resource. Thus, it becomes difficult for the HR professional to overlook the role conflict. Moreover, this discordance can become confounded should these two roles be further supplemented with obligations to provide social support. Indeed, previous studies, in highlighting this contradiction, have shown that policies and practices developed by HRM to support the attainment of organizational strategic goals can negatively impact on employees, with this negative impact sometimes having a spill-over effect to their families and communities (⁎Mariappanadar, 2012; ⁎Mariappanadar & Kramar, 2014). Importantly, this contradiction was also identified in the work of ⁎Zhang et al. (2015), where they found the social role dictated to the HRM function that attention be paid to matters related to job security and workforce employability (both important to the sustainability of local communities), while the strategic role contrastingly directed HRM attention towards issues pertaining to numerical flexibility (⁎Zhang et al., 2015). Here we find that although conceptual frameworks, and the findings of this SLR, recognize the need for these roles to be considered holistically and performed in conjunction with each other, these roles nonetheless continue to be dealt with separately both in practice and in the literature. Thus, there is a tendency to strengthen the paradox of ‘belonging’ rather than to propose possible ways to resolve it. 3.3.2. Paradox of performing Paradox of performing refers to the need for the HR professional to simultaneously contribute towards the attainment of a variety of organizational goals linked to the CSR/S agenda. The strategic partner role, in and of itself, could become a more complex one due to the paradoxical tensions that exist between an organization's goals. An organization's strategy will likely include goals connected towards profitability, but also environmental and social concerns – these goals will inherently have contradictions and tensions between them (Hahn et al., 2015; Hahn, Preuss, Pinkse, & Figge, 2014). The tensions result from the organization needing to draw from the same resource base to achieve goals related to the different sustainability dimensions and the associated needs of each of their stakeholder groups. For example, economic growth is often associated with the more intensive depletion of natural resources (⁎DuBois & Dubois, 2012; Pogutz et al., 2011); while demand for suppliers to maintain environmental-friendly practices; and/or ensure that the human and labour rights of the employees are observed, might result in significant increases to the cost of supplied goods and low economic feasibility (⁎Longoni, Luzzini, & Guerci, 2016; ⁎Yu, 2008). Being involved in supporting an organization's CSR/S strategy will likely see the HR professionals come face to face with these tensions and therefore they need to consider how the HRM policies and practices will support each of the goals related to the three TBL dimensions and resolve the paradox of performing. These challenging aspects of HRM involvement in CSR/S are features that have not been afforded much recognition in the literature or in practice. ⁎Voegtlin and Greenwood (2016) make the observation that most commentators have addressed this relationship in terms of a win-win scenario, and as a result the challenges and contradictions noted above have been overlooked. Notably, Ehnert (2009), in her study of sustainable HRM, found that organizations infrequently discussed the paradoxical tensions related to sustainable HRM and thus rarely provided information about approaches used to reconcile these tensions. This SLR has also found that the challenges associated with HRM-CSR/S integration have rarely been the focus of research. More specifically, we found only 24 out of the 108 reviewed articles mentioned any challenges related to HRM's involvement in CSR, with only 5 papers discussing the tensions between the needs of different stakeholders or goals related to the different aspects of the TBL. In most of these cases, issues associated with CSR/S-based HRM were not considered to be part of the research remit (exceptions were ⁎Garavan et al. (2010); ⁎Gond, Igalens, Swaen, and El Akremi (2011); ⁎Guerci and Carollo (2016)). Thus far, our overview suggests organizations should not view CSR/S–HRM integration as a seamless process. Indeed, not only is the HRM function already facing a multitude of challenges as it works to reconcile its more traditional roles, involvement in the CSR/ S sphere adds a host of new complexities to this challenge. In addressing this challenge, we suggest the HR professional should direct their efforts towards achieving a harmonious balance between these roles and goals – not necessarily a complete reconciliation. The 11

Human Resource Management Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

N. Podgorodnichenko, et al.

SLR has shown that while there is a growing cognizance of the need for balancing conflicting outcomes associated with the CSR/SHRM integration, the identification and resolution of these paradoxical tensions has not been a primary focus. To address this gap, we now draw on paradox theory to help glean a better understanding of how progress in this arena might best be achieved. 3.4. HRM approaches to coping with tensions Paradox theory suggests that there are different ways of dealing with tensions ranging from avoidance to the creation of a new, often overarching approach, which permits managers to address both alternatives without either prioritizing one over another or separating them (Poole & van de Ven, 1989). The SLR identified two types of HRM approaches conducive to the accommodation of paradoxical tensions: (1) creating an organizational context for CSR/S; and (2) developing mutually supportive HRM practices which can simultaneously contribute towards the performing of roles related to the various dimensions of a CSR/S agenda. We now look at each of these in turn. 3.4.1. Creating organizational context The SLR has shown that, in addition to performing roles focusing on certain dimensions of sustainability (organizational, environmental, social) or needs of different stakeholders (external stakeholders versus internal) which have potential to enhance the tensions, HRM can play important role in creating a foundation for sustainable/responsible organizations by directing attention towards the development of a culture and a leadership style which are complementary to CSR/S and which assist in creating a context conducive to paradoxical thinking and innovations. To be able to resolve paradoxical tensions, organizations first need to be able to acknowledge the presence of various goals and the contradictions between them, and then apply a paradoxical rather than a businesscase lens to this problem (Hahn et al., 2014). In this regard, the literature in this area is replete with examples of how the HRM function can create these conditions which facilitate recognition and simultaneous achievement of different CSR/S goals by organizations. See Table 1 for a summary of this information. From the papers selected for this SLR we identified 12 which discussed the HRM role in terms of it developing appropriate foundations for sustainable and responsible organizations. These articles suggested this was best achieved via leadership and employee development, along with the generation of organizational cultures, structures and processes conducive to a CSR/S strategy. This literature also addressed how HRM could help organizations to attract and develop leaders who shared the organizations' sustainability and ethical value ethos (⁎Blakeley & Higgs, 2014; ⁎Vickers, 2005; ⁎Williams & Turnbull, 2015). HRM practices have been found to be an effective mechanism for helping leaders to recognize CSR/S issues and also to sensitize them to the paradoxical tensions and contradictions described earlier (⁎Blakeley & Higgs, 2014; ⁎Pless et al., 2012). Organizations can then benefit from the virtuous cycle which is created with those in leadership developing their followers so that all have a healthy respect for the CSR/Srelated needs and goals being pursued by the organization. At the employee level, the ethical stance of employees can be enhanced by instilling CSR/S values in the organization's culture. This can be achieved through the use of internal communications, training and development programs alongside of the targeted recruitment of applicants who share the organization's sentiment and values (⁎Colbert & Kurucz, 2007; ⁎Wirtenberg et al., 2007). It is these types of initiatives along with their effective operationalization at the shop floor level that is considered most important to this resolution process (Clegg, Vieira de Cunha, & Cunha, M. P. e., 2002). Finally, the HR professional needs to ensure that the organizational structure is conducive to the delivery of sustainability goals and in this regard the structure should promote collaboration, creativity and innovation (⁎Stolz & Mclean, 2009) as these are all central tenets necessary for tension resolution. For example, there are a plethora of initiatives which are considered to support CSR/S goals and these include such things as diversity and inclusion (⁎Jabbour & Santos, 2008; ⁎Sroufe et al., 2010), the promotion of networking (⁎Schoemaker et al., 2006), affording job security, and enhancing trust (⁎Chang et al., 2013). These HRM activities do not resolve paradoxical tensions pertaining to sustainability and CSR per se. However, they do help to create an organizational context which recognizes and acknowledges these tensions and supports an environment where accommodation to these tensions can be achieved through innovation (synthesis). The ethical principles and sustainability values which are instilled through leadership development, recruitment, communication and socialisation and training create the foundation for decision-making connected to different sustainability needs and in doing so the context is surveyed for solutions which can synthesize contradicting demands, not ignore them. The extension of HRM's focus beyond leadership development ensures that the organization's priorities and values are shared and supported across all organizational levels and that employees engage with paradoxical frameworks which help them to recognize the different needs at play and to assist them in making decisions or providing suggestions which are aligned with the organization's ethos. Moreover, in creating the organizational context for CSR/S, the HRM function not only recognizes and accommodates to the paradox of ‘performing’ but it also ensures the organization and its leadership acknowledge the multiplicity of HRM roles related to CSR/S thus helping to cope with the paradox of ‘belonging’. 3.4.2. Developing a holistic approach Developing a holistic (synthesizing) approach is another type of HRM intervention. This approach involves the development of practices which balance the contradictions between different HRM roles. Specifically, HRM practices are developed in such a manner that they simultaneously help to perform different roles. The academic literature devoted to CSR/S integration with HRM is replete with examples of HRM policies and practices which help HRM to concurrently perform various roles and to offer support to the differing CSR/S dimensions (see Table 1). For example, ⁎Arnaud and Wasieleski (2014) explain how HRM practices focused on 12

Human Resource Management Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

N. Podgorodnichenko, et al.

Table 1 HRM approaches to tensions resolution.

Creating organizational context

Creating holistic policies and practices

HRM policies and practices

Outcomes

Leadership development (⁎Blakeley & Higgs, 2014; ⁎Pless, Maak, & Stahl, 2012; ⁎Vickers, 2005; ⁎Williams & Turnbull, 2015; ⁎Wirtenberg, Harmon, Russell, & Fairfield, 2007) Exposing leadership to ethical, sustainability, and CSR needs and problems:

Recognition of CSR/S needs Setting of CSR/S goals Development of paradoxical frameworks Ethical decision-making Development followers' awareness of CSR/S and ethical behaviour

- Responsible leadership development programs – work with NGOs - International service assignments for leaders - Ethics training, mentoring, discussions - Sustainability training - Leadership selection with respect to ethics Organizational culture (⁎Chang, Oh, & Messersmith, 2013; ⁎Colbert & Kurucz, 2007; ⁎Sroufe, Liebowitz, & Sivasubramaniam, 2010; ⁎Vickers, 2005; ⁎Wirtenberg et al., 2007) Goals alignment at all organizational levels through communication, staff participation, performance management Inculcating sustainability and ethics values Recruitment of employees with shared values Socialisation with respect to CSR/S Employees selection with respect to ethics Employee development (⁎Chang et al., 2013; ⁎Colbert & Kurucz, 2007; ⁎Harvey, Williams, & Probert, 2013; ⁎Williams & Turnbull, 2015; ⁎Wirtenberg et al., 2007) Stimulating thinking about CSR/S problems Sustainability training Developing resilience Internal promotions Organizational structures and processes development (⁎Benn, Dunphy, & Griffiths, 2006; ⁎Chang et al., 2013; ⁎Schoemaker et al., 2006; ⁎Sroufe et al., 2010; ⁎Stolz & Mclean, 2009; ⁎Vickers, 2005; ⁎Wirtenberg et al., 2007) Process structures Product team-based structures Promotion of networking Whistle-blowing polices and hotlines Performance-contingent pay Diversity and inclusion Employment security Development of trust Developing employee motivation and commitment (⁎Arnaud & Wasieleski, 2014; ⁎Becker, 2011; ⁎Becker, Carbo, & Langella, 2010; ⁎Harvey et al., 2013; ⁎O'Donohue & Torugsa, 2016; ⁎Saratun, 2016; ⁎Zhang et al., 2014) Autonomy, job-enrichment, empowerment Participative performance management Continuous development and training Intrinsic rewarding Ensuring justice and human rights Long-term employment Career development Regular performance reviews Reward linked to performance Voice-giving practices Work-life balance practices Promoting employee participation Health and safety initiatives Developing sustainable human capital (⁎Benn et al., 2006) Autonomy, job-enrichment, empowerment Continuous development and training

Recognising and Balancing CSR/S goals

Acceptance of CSR/S needs and values at all organizational levels

Recognition of CSR/S needs Acceptance of CSR/S goals Everyday behaviour and decision-making with respect to CSR/S goals and values

Organizational environment conducive to recognition of CSR/S issues and innovation, experimentation, creativity in order to resolve them

Simultaneous achievement of employee responsibility, organizational financial, and CSR/S goals

Synthesizing of HRM roles and goals

Simultaneous achievement of employee responsibility and CSR goals Simultaneous achievement of organizational financial and environmental goals Building sustainable human capital and environmental sustainability

(continued on next page) 13

Human Resource Management Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

N. Podgorodnichenko, et al.

Table 1 (continued) HRM policies and practices

Outcomes

Long-term employment and career development High remuneration Promotion of teamwork Developing competitive skills (⁎Li, Tang, & Chen, 2012) Training Multi-tasking Talent management (⁎Palacios-Marqués & DeveceCarañana, 2013) Work-life balance Rewarding individual commitment and innovations Promoting diversisty Promoting knowledge-sharing through international assignments Observing human rights Providing ‘Good HRM’ practices (⁎Buciuniene & Kazlauskaite, 2012) Flexible work arrangements Communication about strategy and performance outcomes Voice-giving

Simultaneous achievement of financial and environmental goals

Simultaneous achievement of financial and CSR goals

Simultaneous achievement or financial and environmental goals

employees' needs (e.g., empowerment, job enrichment, and continuous learning) can both support employees' self-actualisation, selfdetermination and sense of dignity, and also assist the organization to meet its sustainability goals (i.e., goals directed towards environment, customers, or communities). These goals are achieved by having employees who are highly motivated, engaged and committed to the organization and who are capable and willing to make decisions concerning CSR/S needs. ⁎Becker et al. (2010) and ⁎Becker (2011) argue that it is the sustainable and responsible treatment of employees (i.e., considering employees as a long- not a short-term investment) that helps the organization achieve social as well as economic and environmental goals. In this regard, research has shown that HRM practices which increase employees' job satisfaction also promote ‘green’ behaviour as employees are more willing to invest in the achievement of organizational environmental goals and less prone to sabotage them (⁎Harvey et al., 2013). In a similar vein, ⁎O'Donohue and Torugsa (2016), in their study of small Australian machinery companies, found ‘green’ HRM practices represented by environmental training, work-life balance, health and safety, and employee involvement initiatives moderated the relationship between proactive environmental management and financial performance. In concluding, these authors argued that investment in employees' motivation and commitment had potential to improve both environmental and financial performance – a conclusion also reached by ⁎Buciuniene and Kazlauskaite (2012). Although outside of the remit of this SLR, we do note that some authors see volunteering practices to have a dual role – fulfilment of organizational community responsibilities and benefiting employees and organizations by developing employees' capabilities and creating a meaningful workplace (Hartog, Morton, & Muller-Camen, 2008). All the aforementioned practices are based on a holistic view of employees' role in sustainability. In this scenario, employees are considered to be stakeholders/customers of HRM policies, and practices, a driving force in the delivery of economic and environmental objectives, and representatives of communities and society. Designing policies and practices which simultaneously address the different HR roles and also ensuring effective enactment of these roles are both ways in which the HRM function can make a contribution to the co-achievement of different organizational CSR/S-related goals thus coping with paradox of ‘performing’ as well. 3.4.3. Summary model We have showed that the HRM paradoxes of belonging and performing are inextricably linked to HRM and CSR/S. However, as Smith and Tracey (2016) observe, paradoxes although being inherent to actors require a catalyst in the external environment for their explication. ‘Grand challenges’ (Smith & Tracey, 2016) such as climate change, resource depletion and/or growth of inequality, while not affecting HRM directly, trigger changes in the organization's external and internal environment (e.g., by prompting stakeholder pressure for CSR/S, change in legislation, more attention to CSR/S topics in professional practices and academic curriculum, inclusion of CSR/S goals in organizational strategy, and/or changes to organizational operations). These smaller changes surface conflictual tensions for the HRM function by requiring it to simultaneously support incompatible organizational goals and play conflicting roles. So how does the HRM function cope with these tensions? If it chooses to avoid these tensions, because they are interrelated, the issues posed by the tensions might increase and become insurmountable for the organization (Jarzabkowski, Lê, & Van de Ven, 2013; Lewis & Smith, 2014). However, accommodation to one type of paradox can positively influence HRM's ability to accommodate the other, thus creating a virtuous cycle. This SLR has demonstrated that the HRM function can develop approaches to deal with both the tensions of performing and belonging simultaneously. The ability of HRM to do so can in turn be influenced by factors in the external and internal organizational environment. For example, ⁎Mak, Cheung, Mak, and Leung (2014) noted that Chinese Confucian culture is more conducive to sustainable HRM which focuses on the TBL rather than on shareholder value. In addition, Ardichvili (2012) argued that inclusion of sustainability topics in HRM academic curriculum may facilitate stronger 14

Human Resource Management Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

N. Podgorodnichenko, et al.

Fig. 4. Paradoxical tensions of CSR/S-HRM integration.

involvement of the HRM function in CSR/S enabling HRM interventions in leadership development with respect to CSR/S. Organizational culture, structure, leadership commitment to CSR, and even position of the HRM function in organization are also factors which may either inhibit or facilitate the accommodation of paradoxical tensions. In this regard Sarvaiya, Eweje, and Arrowsmith (2016) noted that the organization's commitment to CSR towards employees and resourcefulness of the HRM function helped to facilitate HRM engagement with the leadership in driving a CSR/S agenda. Fig. 4 presents a summary of this model.

4. Limitations and future research This study used a SLR methodology and this approach is not without its limitations. First, this SLR drew on content published in the management literature. However, other disciplines such as industrial psychology and organizational behavior, also address the topic of CSR/S-HRM integration and these works have potential to provide useful insights into nexus between CSR/S and HRM. Accordingly, we encourage researchers interested in this topic to go beyond the management literature and to explore a broader range of relevant literatures. Second, this SLR provides a qualitative analysis of the CSR/S-HRM integration literature. This SLR has identified a steady growth in this area and thus the field would now benefit from meta-analytical studies which are targeted on specific aspects of the CSR/S-HRM nexus. Third, this SLR only reviewed literature that was published in the English language and while we were able to identify studies from various cultural contexts, the inclusion of a literatures written in other languages would significantly enhance this research by providing a much needed cross-cultural lens to the study of CSR/S-HRM integration. Indeed, in this regard ⁎Shen (2011) has lamented the need to strengthen connections between the areas of international HRM and CSR/S, and we believe a study of non-English language literatures would provide a useful starting point for this type of analysis. Our synthesis of the extant literature on CSR/S and HRM has surfaced several important directions for future research. First, the paucity of research across this nexus has highlighted a lack of construct clarity surrounding the concepts of CSR and sustainability. Conceptual ambiguity is a problem that has long plagued studies in the HRM arena, with a lack of definitional consensus often hindering progress in the field. This particular field is still relatively young and so we strongly urge researchers to work towards some agreement about what these constructs might mean in the context of HRM. In addition, this SLR has identified several key roles for HRM in the CSR/S agenda. It is now important that future research looks to develop our understanding about the ways in which HR professionals might effectively enact these roles. In conducting this examination the perspectives of HR practitioners, line managers as well as employees should be sought. It would also be helpful to ascertain the driving factors for CSR/S-HRM integration and how (a) external (stakeholder pressure, legislation, educational curriculum, professional standards, etc.) and (b) internal (inclusion of CSR/S goals in organizational strategy, CSR reporting, change in organizational operations, top management commitment) factors influence this nexus. It is hoped that this type of study will help pave the way for the effective promotion and support of initiatives aimed at fostering CSR/S-HRM integration. Relatedly, the challenges and tensions associated with the performance of various HRM roles and the need to support simultaneous pursuit and attainment of a diverse set of goals are also areas which require further exploration. In this SLR paradox theory was utilized as a lens to inform the identification of paradoxical tensions and possible 15

Human Resource Management Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

N. Podgorodnichenko, et al.

approaches for coping with these tensions. This has hopefully provided a platform for what we believe is a very fruitful area for further research with the focus on effectiveness of various HRM approaches for the accommodation to the paradoxical tensions and for organizational ability to achieve its CSR/S goals. Again, we believe that it is important to consider the role of external and internal environment in in this research. Last, Scully-Russ (2012) suggests that HRD engages “sustainability to the extent that it seeks to influence the values and mental models that people in organizations use to make sense of their experiences, regardless of whether individual practitioners perceive that their work is directly related to sustainability or not” (p. 400). While this view sits comfortably with the findings of this SLR, there is increasing pressure on the HRM function to consciously engage with CSR/S agendas. Thus, it seems prudent for researchers to assess how purposeful versus unfocused integration initiatives might differ both in terms of their operationalization and also their impacts on organizational CSR/S performance. 5. Concluding remarks This SLR has provided an overview of the contemporary literature devoted to the CSR-HRM link and in doing so it has identified some of the key trends in this research and some of the main roles HRM plays in the development of responsible and sustainable organizations. In this capacity, HRM can be seen to act as a lynch pin for organizations pursuing a sustainable agenda. The CSR/S agenda is complex and as such it requires a systematic approach to ensure effective integration. Our SLR has shown that the HR professional needs to perform a variety of divergent roles while, at a functional level, the key HRM drivers include the development of a leadership approach and an organizational culture which recognizes the inevitable paradoxical tensions that can occur. This SLR has highlighted the importance of the CSR/S-HRM relationship to organizations and there is now a need for further study to empirically explore how the HR professional and the HRM function might best position itself to satisfy the demands and requirements mandated by CSR/S agenda. Acknowledgment The authors would like to acknowledge the helpful comments provided by the two reviewers and also the editor on earlier drafts of this submission. Appendix A. Supplementary data Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2019.04.001. References⁎ *Apostol, O., & Näsi, S. (2014). Firm-employee relationships from a social responsibility perspective: Developments from communist thinking to market ideology in Romania. A mass media story. Journal of Business Ethics, 119(3), 301–315. *App, S., Merk, J., & Büttgen, M. (2012). Employer branding: Sustainable HRM as a competitive advantage in the market for high-quality employees. Management Revue, 23(3), 262–278. *Arnaud, S., & Wasieleski, D. (2014). Corporate humanistic responsibility: Social performance through managerial discretion of the HRM. Journal of Business Ethics, 120(3), 313–334. *Au, W. C., & Ahmed, P. K. (2014). Sustainable people management through work-life balance: A study of the Malaysian Chinese context. Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration, 6(3), 262–280. *Becker, W., Carbo, J., & Langella, I. (2010). Beyond self-interest: Integrating social responsibility and supply chain management with human resource development. Human Resource Development Review, 9(2), 144–168. *Becker, W. S. (2011). Are you leading a socially responsible and sustainable human resource function? People & Strategy, 34(1), 18–23. *Benn, S., Dunphy, D., & Griffiths, A. (2006). Enabling change for corporate sustainability: An integrated perspective. Australasian Journal of Environmental Management, 13(3), 156–165. *Blakeley, K., & Higgs, M. (2014). Responsible leadership development – Crucible experiences and power relationships in a global professional services firm. Human Resource Development International, 17, 560–576. *Buciuniene, I., & Kazlauskaite, R. (2012). The linkage between HRM, CSR and performance outcomes. Baltic Journal of Management, 7(1), 5–24. *Celma, D., Martínez-Garcia, E., & Coenders, G. (2014). Corporate social responsibility in human resource management: An analysis of common practices and their determinants in Spain. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 21(2), 82–99. *Chang, Y. K., Oh, W.-Y., & Messersmith, J. G. (2013). Translating corporate social performance into financial performance: Exploring the moderating role of highperformance work practices. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(19), 3738–3756. *Christina, S., Dainty, A., Daniels, K., Tregaskis, O., & Waterson, P. (2017). Shut the fridge door! HRM alignment, job redesign and energy performance. Human Resource Management Journal, 27(3), 382–402. *Colbert, B. A., & Kurucz, E. C. (2007). Three conceptions of triple bottom line business sustainability and the role for HRM. Human Resource Planning, 30(1), 21–29. *Davies, I. A., & Crane, A. (2010). Corporate social responsibility in small-and medium-size enterprises: Investigating employee engagement in fair trade companies. Business Ethics: A European Review, 19(2), 126–139. *Demuijnck, G. (2009). Non-discrimination in human resources management as a moral obligation. Journal of Business Ethics, 88(1), 83–101. *Devins, D., & Gold, J. (2014). Re-conceptualising talent management and development within the context of the low paid. Human Resource Development International, 17(5), 514–528. *DuBois, C. L. Z., & Dubois, D. A. (2012). Strategic HRM as social design for environmental sustainability in organization. Human Resource Management, 51(6), 799–826. *Ehnert, I., Parsa, S., Roper, I., Wagner, M., & Muller-Camen, M. (2016). Reporting on sustainability and HRM: A comparative study of sustainability reporting practices by the world's largest companies. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 27(1), 88–108.

⁎

Note: Articles from the SLR are marked with *. 16

Human Resource Management Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

N. Podgorodnichenko, et al.

*Fuentes-García, F., Núñez-Tabales, J., & Veroz-Herradón, R. (2008). Applicability of corporate social responsibility to human resources management: Perspective from Spain. Journal of Business Ethics, 82(1), 27–44. *Garavan, T. N., & McGuire, D. (2010). Human resource development and society: Human resource development's role in embedding corporate social responsibility, sustainability, and ethics in organizations. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 12(5), 487–507. *Garavan, T. N., Heraty, N., Rock, A., & Dalton, E. (2010). Conceptualizing the behavioral barriers to CSR and CS in organizations: A typology of HRD interventions. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 12(5), 587–613. *Gellert, F. J., & Graaf, F. J. (2012). Corporate social responsibility and aging workforces: An explorative study of corporate social responsibility implementation in small- and medium-sized enterprises. Business Ethics: A European Review, 21(4), 353–363. *Gond, J.-P., Igalens, J., Swaen, V., & El Akremi, A. (2011). The human resources contribution to responsible leadership: An exploration of the CSR-HR interface. Journal of Business Ethics, 98, 115–132. *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. *Guerci, M., Longoni, A., & Luzzini, D. (2016). Translating stakeholder pressures into environmental performance – The mediating role of green HRM practices. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 27(2), 262–289. *Haddock-Millar, J., Sanyal, C., & Müller-Camen, M. (2016). Green human resource management: A comparative qualitative case study of a United States multinational corporation. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 27(2), 192–211. *Harvey, G., Williams, K., & Probert, J. (2013). Greening the airline pilot: HRM and the green performance of airlines in the UK. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(1), 152–166. *Jabbour, C. J. C., & Santos, F. C. A. (2008). The central role of human resource management in the search for sustainable organizations. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19(12), 2133–2154. *Jamali, D., El Dirani, A. M., & Harwood, I. A. (2015). Exploring human resource management roles in corporate social responsibility: The CSR-HRM co-creation model. Business Ethics: A European Review, 24(2), 125–143. *Knudsen, J. S., Geisler, K., & Ege, M. (2013). Corporate social responsibility in the board room – When do directors pay attention? Human Resource Development International, 16(2), 238–246. *Kozica, A., & Kaiser, S. (2012). A sustainability perspective on flexible HRM: How to cope with paradoxes of contingent work. Management Revue, 23(3), 239–261. *Kramar, R. (2014). Beyond strategic human resource management: Is sustainable human resource management the next approach? The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25(8), 1069–1089. *Ledwidge, J. (2007). Corporate social responsibility: The risks and opportunities for HR: Integrating human and social values into the strategic and operational fabric. Human Resource Management International Digest, 15(6), 27–30. *Li, J., Tang, G., & Chen, Y. (2012). Firms' human resource in information system and sustainable performance: Does their organizational identity matter? The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23(18), 3838–3855. *Lis, B. (2012). The relevance of corporate social responsibility for a sustainable human resource management: An analysis of organizational attractiveness as a determinant in employees' selection of a (potential) employer. Management Revue, 23(3), 279–295. *Longoni, A., Luzzini, D., & Guerci, M. (2016). Deploying environmental management across functions: The relationship between green human resource management and green supply chain management. Journal of Business Ethics, 1–15. *Lothe, S., & Myrtveit, I. (2003). Compensation systems for green strategy implementation: Parametric and non-parametric approaches. Business Strategy and the Environment, 12(3), 191–203. *Mak, A., Cheung, L., Mak, A., & Leung, L. (2014). Confucian thinking and the implications for sustainability in HRM. Asia - Pacific Journal of Business Administration, 6(3), 173–189. *Mariappanadar, S. (2012). Harm of efficiency oriented HRM practices on stakeholders: An ethical issue for sustainability. Society and Business Review, 7(2), 168–184. *Mariappanadar, S., & Kramar, R. (2014). Sustainable HRM: The synthesis effect of high performance work systems on organisational performance and employee harm. Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration, 6(3), 206–224. *Mirvis, P. (2012). Employee engagement and CSR. California Management Review, 54(4), 93–117. *Muster, V., & Schrader, U. (2011). Green work-life balance: A new perspective for green HRM. Zeitschrift für Personalforschung, 25(2), 140–156. *Newman, A., Miao, Q., Hofman, P. S., & Zhu, C. J. (2016). The impact of socially responsible human resource management on employees' organizational citizenship behaviour: The mediating role of organizational identification. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 27(4), 440–455. *O'Donohue, W., & Torugsa, N. (2016). The moderating effect of 'Green' HRM on the association between proactive environmental management and financial performance in small firms. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 27(2), 239–261. *Packer, A. H., & Sharrar, G. K. (2003). Linking lifelong learning, corporate social responsibility, and the changing nature of work. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 5(3), 332–341. *Palacios-Marqués, D., & Devece-Carañana, C. A. (2013). Policies to support corporate social responsibility: The case of Telefónica. Human Resource Management, 52(1), 145–152. *Pless, N. M., Maak, T., & Stahl, G. K. (2012). Promoting corporate social responsibility and sustainable development through management development: What can be learned from international service learning programs? Human Resource Management, 51(6), 873–903. *Preuss, L., Haunschild, A., & Matten, D. (2009). The rise of CSR: Implications for HRM and employee representation. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20(4), 953–973. *Renwick, D. W. S., Redman, T., & Maguire, S. (2013). Green human resource management: A review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 15(1), 1–14. *Renwick, D. W. S., Jabbour, C. J. C., Muller-Camen, M., Redman, T., & Wilkinson, A. (2016). Contemporary developments in Green (environmental) HRM scholarship. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 27(2), 114–128. *Saratun, M. (2016). Performance management to enhance employee engagement for corporate sustainability. Asia - Pacific Journal of Business Administration, 8(1), 84–102. *Schoemaker, M., Nijhof, A., & Jonker, J. (2006). Human value management. The influence of the contemporary developments of corporate social responsibility and social capital on HRM. Management Revue, 17(4), 448–465. *Shen, J. (2011). Developing the concept of socially responsible international human resource management. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22(6), 1351–1363. *Shen, J., & Benson, J. (2016). When CSR is a social norm: How socially responsible human resource management affects employee work behavior. Journal of Management, 42(6), 1723–1746. *Simmons, J. (2008). Ethics and morality in human resource management. Social Responsibility Journal, 4(1/2), 8–23. *Sroufe, R., Liebowitz, J., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (2010). Are you a leader or a laggard? HR's role in creating a sustainability culture. People and Strategy, 33(1), 34–42. *Stolz, I., & Mclean, G. N. (2009). Organizational skills for a corporate citizen: Policy analysis. Human Resource Development Review, 8(2), 174–196. *Tang, G., Chen, Y., Jiang, Y., Paillé, P., & Jia, J. (2017). Green human resource management practices: Scale development and validity. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 31–55. *Vickers, M. R. (2005). Business ethics and the HR role: Past, present, and future. Human Resource Planning, 28(1), 26–32. *Voegtlin, C., & Greenwood, M. (2016). Corporate social responsibility and human resource management: A systematic review and conceptual analysis. Human Resource Management Review, 26(3), 181–197. *Waring, P., & Lewer, J. (2004). The impact of socially responsible investment on human resource management: A conceptual framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 52(1), 99–108. *Wilcox, T. (2006). Human resource development as an element of corporate social responsibility. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 44(2), 184–196.

17

Human Resource Management Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

N. Podgorodnichenko, et al.

*Williams, S., & Turnbull, S. (2015). Developing the next generation of globally responsible leaders: Generation Y perspectives and the implications for Green HRD. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 17(4), 504–521. *Wirtenberg, J., Harmon, J., Russell, W. G., & Fairfield, K. D. (2007). HR's role in building a sustainable enterprise: Insights from some of the world's best companies. Human Resource Planning, 30(1), 10–20. *Yu, X. (2008). Impacts of corporate code of conduct on labor standards: A case study of Reebok's athletic footwear supplier factory in China. Journal of Business Ethics, 81(3), 513–529. *Zappalà, G. (2004). Corporate citizenship and human resource management: A new tool or a missed opportunity? Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 42(2), 185–201. *Zhang, M., Di Fan, D., & Zhu, C. J. (2014). High-performance work systems, corporate social performance and employee outcomes: Exploring the missing links. Journal of Business Ethics, 120(3), 423–435. *Zhang, M., Bartram, T., McNeil, N., & Dowling, P. (2015). Towards a research agenda on the sustainable and socially responsible management of agency workers through a flexicurity model of HRM. Journal of Business Ethics, 127(3), 513–523. Aguinis, H., & Glavas, A. (2012). What we know and don't know about corporate social responsibility: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 38(4), 932–968. Ardichvili, A. (2012). Sustainability or limitless expansion: Paradigm shift in HRD practice and teaching. European Journal of Training and Development, 36(9), 873–887. Asif, M., Searcy, C., Zutshi, A., & Fisscher, O. A. M. (2013). An integrated management systems approach to corporate social responsibility. Journal of Cleaner Production, 56, 7–17. Baek, P., & Kim, N. (2014). Exploring a theoretical foundation for HRD in society: Toward a model of stakeholder-based HRD. Human Resource Development International, 17(5), 499–513. Banerjee, S. B. (2008). Corporate social responsibility: The good, the bad and the ugly. Critical Sociology, 34(1), 51–79. Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120. Benn, S., Teo, S. T. T., & Martin, A. (2015). Employee participation and engagement in working for the environment. Personnel Review, 44(4), 492–510. Boiral, O. (2009). Greening the corporation through organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Business Ethics, 87(2), 221–236. Boldizzoni, D., & Quaratino, L. (2011). The role of human resource manager: Change agent vs. business partner? Research into HRM in Italy. EBS Review, 28, 41–52. Bondarouk, T., & Brewster, C. (2016). Conceptualising the future of HRM and technology research. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 27(21), 2652–2671. Boudreau, J., & Ramstad, P. M. (2005). Talentship, talent segmentation, and sustainability: A new HR decision science paradigm for a new strategy definition. Human Resource Management, 44(2), 129–136. Boxall, P. F., & Purcell, J. (2003). Strategy and human resource management. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Chartered Institute of Personnel Development. (2013). The role of HR in corporate responsibility. Retrieved from https://www.cipd.co.uk/Images/the-role-of-hr-incorporate-responsibility_2013-sop_tcm18-9315.pdf. Chartered Institute of Personnel Development (2015). Factsheet: Corporate responsibility. Resource summary. Retrieved from http://www.cipd.co.uk/hr-resources/ factsheets/corporate-responsibility.aspx. Clegg, S. R., Vieira de Cunha, J., & Cunha, M. P. e. (2002). Management paradoxes: A relational view. Human Relations, 55(5), 483–503. Cohen, E., Taylor, S., & Muller-Camen, M. (2012). HRM's role in corporate social and environmental sustainability. Retrieved from http://www.wfpma.com/sites/ wfpma.com/files/CSR%20Report%20FINAL%202012.pdf Colicchia, C., & Strozzi, F. (2012). Supply chain risk management: A new methodology for a systematic literature review. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 17(4), 403–418. Collier, J., & Esteban, R. (2007). Corporate social responsibility and employee commitment. Business Ethics: A European Review, 16(1), 19–33. Cornelius, N., Todres, M., Janjuha-Jivraj, S., Woods, A., & Wallace, J. (2008). Corporate social responsibility and the social enterprise. Journal of Business Ethics, 81(2), 355–370. Crisp, B. R. (2015). Systematic reviews: A social work perspective. Australian Social Work, 68(3), 284–295. Crossan, M. M., & Apaydin, M. (2010). A multi-dimensional framework of organizational innovation: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of Management Studies, 47(6), 1154–1191. Danese, P., Manfè, V., & Romano, P. (2018). A systematic literature review on recent lean research: State-of-the-art and future directions. International Journal of Management Reviews, 20(2), 579–605. *De Prins, P., Van Beirendonck, L., De Vos, A., & Segers, J. (2014). Sustainable HRM: Bridging theory and practice through the 'Respect Openness Continuity (ROC)'model. Management Revue, 25(4), 263–284. De Gama, N., McKenna, S., & Peticca-Harris, A. (2012). Ethics and HRM: Theoretical and conceptual analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 111(1), 97–108. DeNisi, A. S., Wilson, M. S., & Biteman, J. (2014). Research and practice in HRM: A historical perspective. Human Resource Management Review, 24(3), 219–231. Denyer, D., Tranfield, D., & Van Aken, J. E. (2008). Developing design propositions through research synthesis. Organization Studies, 29(3), 393–413. Dulebohn, J. H., Ferris, G. R., & Stodd, J. T. (1995). The history and evolution of human resource management. In G. R. Ferris, S. D. Rosen, & D. T. Barnum (Eds.). Handbook of human resource management (pp. 18–41). Cambridge, Massachusetts: Blackwell Business. Ehnert, I. (2009). Sustainable human resource management. Heidelberg: Physica-Verlag HD. Ehnert, I. (2014). Paradox as a lens for theorizing sustainable HRM. Mapping and coping with paradoxes and tensions. In I. Ehnert, W. Harry, & K. J. Zink (Eds.). Sustainability and human resource management: Developing sustainable business organizations (pp. 247–271). Heidelberg, New York: Springer. Elsevier. (2015). Sustainability science in a global landscape. Retrieved from https://www.elsevier.com/research-intelligence/resource-library/sustainability-2015. Francis, H., & Keegan, A. (2006). The changing face of HRM: In search of balance. Human Resource Management Journal, 16(3), 231–249. Galuppo, L., Gorli, M., Scaratti, G., & Kaneklin, C. (2014). Building social sustainability: Multi-stakeholder processes and conflict management. Social Responsibility Journal, 10(4), 685–701. Gond, J. P., El Akremi, A., Swaen, V., & Babu, N. (2017). The psychological microfoundations of corporate social responsibility: A person-centric systematic review. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(2), 225–246. Greenwood, M. (2013). Ethical analyses of HRM: A review and research agenda. Journal of Business Ethics, 114(2), 355–366. Guest, D., & Woodrow, C. (2012). Exploring the boundaries of human resource managers' responsibilities. Journal of Business Ethics, 111(1), 109–119. Hahn, T., Preuss, L., Pinkse, J., & Figge, F. (2014). Cognitive frames in corporate sustainability: Managerial sensemaking with paradoxical and business case frames. Academy of Management Review, 39(4), 463–487. Hahn, T., Pinkse, J., Preuss, L., & Figge, F. (2015). Tensions in corporate sustainability: Towards an integrative framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 127(2), 297–316. Hahn, T., Figge, F., Pinkse, J., & Preuss, L. (2018). A paradox perspective on corporate sustainability: Descriptive, instrumental, and normative aspects. Journal of Business Ethics, 148(2), 235–248. Hamilton, A., & Gioia, D. A. (2009). Fostering sustainability-focused organizational identities. In L. M. Roberts, & J. E. Dutton (Eds.). Exploring positive identities and organizations building. A theoretical and research foundation (pp. 435–460). Hoboken: Taylor and Francis. Hartog, M., Morton, C., & Muller-Camen, M. (2008). CSR and sustainable HRM. In M. Muller-Camen, R. Croucher, & S. Leigh (Eds.). Human resource management: A case study approach (pp. 467–486). London: The Chartered Institute of Personnel Development. Hirsig, N., Rogovsky, N., & Elkin, M. (2014). Enterprise sustainability and HRM in small and medium-sized enterprises. In I. Ehnert, W. Harry, & K. J. Zink (Eds.). Sustainability and human resource management: Developing sustainable business organizations (pp. 127–152). Heidelberg, New York: Springer. Hobelsberger, C. (2014). Sustainability and HRM in international supply chains. In I. Ehnert, W. Harry, & K. J. Zink (Eds.). Sustainability and human resource management: Developing sustainable business organizations (pp. 379–400). Heidelberg, New York: Springer. Jarzabkowski, P., Lê, J., & Van de Ven, A. H. (2013). Responding to competing strategic demands: How organizing, belonging, and performing paradoxes coevolve. Strategic Organization, 1–36.

18

Human Resource Management Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

N. Podgorodnichenko, et al.

Keegan, A., & Francis, H. (2010). Practitioner talk: The changing textscape of HRM and emergence of HR business partnership. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 21(6), 873–898. Kim, A., Kim, Y., Han, K., Jackson, S. E., & Ployhart, R. E. (2014). Multilevel influences on voluntary workplace green behavior: Individual differences, leader behavior, and coworker advocacy. Journal of Management, 43(5), 1335–1358. Lerman, M., & Smith, A. (2016). Coding for trustworthiness. Atlanta: Paper presented at the Academy of Management. Lewis, M. W. (2000). Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 760–776. Lewis, M. W., & Smith, W. K. (2014). Paradox as a metatheoretical perspective: Sharpening the focus and widening the scope. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 50(2), 127–149. Marchington, M. (2015). Human resource management (HRM): Too busy looking up to see where it is going longer term? Human Resource Management Review, 25(2), 176–187. Mariappanadar, S. (2003). Sustainable human resource strategy: The sustainable and unsustainable dilemmas of retrenchment. International Journal of Social Economics, 30(8), 906–923. Moir, L. (2001). What do we mean by corporate social responsibility? Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 1(2), 16–22. Montiel, I. (2008). Corporate social responsibility and corporate sustainability: Separate pasts, common futures. Organization & Environment, 21(3), 245–269. Nidumolu, R., Prahalad, C. K., & Rangaswami, M. R. (2009). Why sustainability is now the key driver of innovation. Harvard Business Review, 87(9), 56–64. Nolan, C. T., & Garavan, T. N. (2016). Human resource development in SMEs: A systematic review of the literature. International Journal of Management Reviews, 18(1), 85–107. Organ, D. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (2006). Organizational citizenship behavior its nature, antecedents, and consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Paillé, P., Boiral, O., & Chen, Y. (2013). Linking environmental management practices and organizational citizenship behaviour for the environment: A social exchange perspective. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(18), 3552–3575. Pogutz, S., Micale, V., & Winn, M. (2011). Corporate environmental sustainability beyond organizational boundaries: Market growth, ecosystems complexity and supply chain structure as co-determinants of environmental impact. Journal of Environmental Sustainability, 1(1), 1–22 Article 4. Poole, M. S., & van de Ven, A. H. (1989). Using paradox to build management and organization theories. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 562–578. Ramachandran, V. (2011). Strategic corporate social responsibility: A ‘dynamic capabilities’ perspective. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 18(5), 285–293. Rocha, M., Searcy, C., & Karapetrovic, S. (2007). Integrating sustainable development into existing management systems. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 18(1–2), 83–92. Sarvaiya, H., & Wu, M. (2014). An integrated approach for corporate social responsibility and corporate sustainability. Asian Social Science, 10(17), 57–70. Sarvaiya, H., Eweje, G., & Arrowsmith, J. (2016). The roles of HRM in CSR: Strategic partnership or operational support? Journal of Business Ethics, 153(3), 825–837. Schuler, R. S., & Jackson, S. E. (2014). Human resource management and organizational effectiveness: Yesterday and today. Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance, 1(1), 35–55. Scully-Russ, E. (2012). Human resource development and sustainability: Beyond sustainable organizations. Human Resource Development International, 15(4), 399–415. Sheehan, C., De Cieri, H., Greenwood, M., & Van Buren, H. J. (2014). HR professional role tensions: Perceptions and responses of the top management team. Human Resource Management, 53(1), 115–130. Smith, N. C. (2003). Corporate social responsibility: Whether of how? California Management Review, 45(4), 52–76. Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 381–403. Smith, W. K., & Tracey, P. (2016). Institutional complexity and paradox theory: Complementarities of competing demands. Strategic Organization, 14(4), 455–466. Society for Human Resource Management.(2011). Advancing sustainability: HR's role. Retrieved from https://www.shrm.org/Research/SurveyFindings/Articles/ Documents/11-0066_AdvSustainHR_FNL_FULL.pdf. Steers, I. (2008). HR fables: Schizophrenia, selling your soul in dystopia, fuck the employees, and sleepless nights. Business Ethics: A European Review, 17(4), 391–404. Stubbs, W., & Schapper, J. (2011). Two approaches to curriculum development for educating for sustainability and CSR. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 12(3), 259–268. Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management, 14(3), 207–222. Ulrich, D. (2013). Human resource champions: The next agenda for adding value and delivering results. Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business Press. Ulrich, D., & Brockbank, W. (2009). The HR business-partner model: Past learnings and future challenges. People and Strategy, 32(2), 5–7. Ulrich, D., & Dulebohn, J. H. (2015). Are we there yet? What's next for HR? Human Resource Management Review, 25(2), 188–204. Van Buren, H. J., Greenwood, M., & Sheehan, C. (2011). Strategic human resource management and the decline of employee focus. Human Resource Management Review, 21(3), 209–219. Wang, C. L., & Chugh, H. (2014). Entrepreneurial learning: Past research and future challenges. International Journal of Management Reviews, 16(1), 24–61. Watson, T. J. (2007). HRM, ethical irrationality, and the limits of ethical action. In A. H. Pinnington, R. Macklin, & T. Campbell (Eds.). Human resource management: Ethics and employment (pp. 223–236). Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press. Wood, D. J. (2010). Measuring corporate social performance: A review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(1), 50–84. Wright, C. (2008). Reinventing human resource management: Business partners, internal consultants and the limits to professionalization. Human Relations, 61(8), 1063–1086.

19