Next Article in Journal
The Crossover Cooperation Mode and Mechanism of Green Innovation between Manufacturing and Internet Enterprises in Digital Economy
Next Article in Special Issue
The Role of Green Training in the Ministry of Education’s Corporate Environmental Performance: A Mediation Analysis of Organizational Citizenship Behavior towards the Environment and Moderation Role of Perceived Organizational Support
Previous Article in Journal
Remediation of Sb-Contaminated Soil by Low Molecular Weight Organic Acids Washing: Efficiencies and Mechanisms
Previous Article in Special Issue
An Introduction to Human Resources for Development and Innovation, Science Transformation into Industry Infrastructure by China’s New Universities: A Case Study of Green Materials
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 5
10.3390/su15054158
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Effects of Green Human Resource Management on Innovation Performance through Green Innovation: Evidence from Northern Cyprus on Small Island Universities

by
Sirous Bahmani
1,*,
Panteha Farmanesh
1 and
Amir Hossein Khademolomoom
2
1
Department of Business Management, Faculty of Business and Economics, Girne American University, Mersin 10, Girne 99300, Turkey
2
Department of Business Administration, University of Mediterranean Karpasia, Mersin 10, Lefkosa 99010, Turkey
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(5), 4158; https://doi.org/10.3390/su15054158
Submission received: 16 December 2022 / Revised: 12 February 2023 / Accepted: 16 February 2023 / Published: 24 February 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Green Engineering and Sustainable Development in Production and Resource Management)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The education sector has been severely affected by the global pandemic of COVID-19, and the need for improvement in its aftermath became a challenge for scholars and practitioners alike. The current research focuses on the role of Green Human Resource Management (GHRM) initiatives as an independent variable that is innovation-centric, and improved innovation performance of education sector employees as the dependent variable. GHRM in the current context is described as focusing on environmental aspects within the processes and functions of work in a comprehensive manner that incorporates both resource/waste management and areas of development, as well as green behavior among members. Moreover, the mediating effect of green innovation on the aforementioned relationship and enhancing the role of environmental leadership are examined through a quantitative approach using purposive and convenience sampling techniques. Data from several universities across Northern Cyprus have been gathered with regard to the design, aims, and context of this study. With a total of 187 teachers and administrators from three different universities and using PLS-SEM for analysis, the results show that human resource departments in universities can play a major role in determining the extent of innovation performance within the organization. Green innovation as a mediator can improve the workplace environment, which can be significantly enhanced through an adequate leadership that supports such initiatives (i.e., environmental leadership). The current results can be beneficial for scholars (organizational psychology, innovation, and sustainable HRM), as well as decision-makers in the universities in Northern Cyprus as a small island.

1. Introduction

Green Human Resource Management (hereafter GHRM) is the core context of the current study and is a recent branch of HRM, managing highly valuable assets of a company (i.e., its human resources). GHRM places emphases on environmental aspects and futures within the processes and functions of work to gain positive outcomes such as enhanced performance and increased innovativeness, motivation, and satisfaction among employees [1,2]. HRM initiatives, practices, and frameworks that encourage sustainable behavior can be conceptualized as GHRM [3,4]. In this respect, it is important to mention that there are numerous variables and factors that can influence the outcomes of sustainability within an organization. Environmental concerns and the allocation of business/organization resources are deeply linked to the strategies, planning, and actions of GHRM [3,5]. The overall outcomes of such initiatives and strategic developments towards sustainability are improvements in the workplace environment, particularly in the education sector, where innovative behavior and innovation performance are vital due to its setting.
The aforementioned vitality can be observed in overall performance, improved stakeholder views, enhanced educational settings for students, and facilitated workplaces for employees (e.g., administrators, and teachers). This research argues that through GHRM practices universities are able to improve their innovation performance, as these practices are focused on contributing to economic, social, and environmental domains [6]. This is further linked to the context of sustainability and the Triple Bottom Line [7] that positively influences green performance for businesses through modern, innovative, and strategic HRM practices. Innovation performance is a topic that encompasses the intensity level of international competitive rivalry, demanding markets, and constantly developing technologies [6,8,9]. The aim of this research is to provide empirical evidence supporting the argument that GHRM practices can yield improved innovation performance [10], which has been less examined compared to social and financial performance. Furthermore, this can contribute to the current understanding of the subject. Moreover, the context of small islands is in need of empirical evidence in the extant literature. Considering other elements that are included in the proposed model of the research (see Figure 1), the conduct of this study is driven by a combination of theories and a specific case that can be beneficial for scholars interested in organizational psychology, leadership, HRM, and sustainability, while being useful for decision-makers in the education sector.
Following what has been mentioned, green innovation is assessed in the current research in terms of its mediating effect on the relationship between GHRM and innovation performance. Green innovation in the company through established strategies implemented by the managers can improve the environmental performance of organizations [11]. In the context of the current research, green innovation is the creation and/or development of goods, processes, and eco-friendly services [9,11]. Green innovations in the academic sector, and from the employee perspective, can manifest in the provision of services to students, the procedures of tasks, and a certain level of job autonomy [12]. Carrying a mediating role, green innovation can yield positive outcomes for the organization such as competitive advantage and an improved environmental performance at the corporate level [13,14,15]. In this study, the mediating role of green innovation is examined among academic staff of universities in a small island setting (i.e., Northern Cyprus), which is a noted gap in the existing literature.
Leadership plays a major role in determining the extent to which employees are able to exhibit high levels of innovation in their performance. When leaders show ethical, positive, supportive, responsible, and sustainable behavior, it can lead to positive behavioral outcomes among employees such as increased job satisfaction [16], innovation behavior [6], green innovation [13,17], and innovation performance [18,19]. In universities, especially the ones in Northern Cyprus, there is a high level of diversity among staff in terms of nationality and ethnicity. This can support the idea that GHRM practices should be directed by the leadership towards an organizational innovative culture [20] that can positively influence innovative performance. Environmental leadership is an approach and perception of leaders towards the environment and various means that can be used for the better usage of resources, and thus have a positive influence economically, socially, and environmentally. At the decision-making level, leaders who promote and encourage taking initiatives for the benefit of the environment can obtain results that are tangible for the organization [13,18,21]. The values, beliefs, objectives, and culture of the organization are under the influence of its leadership, which is a determinant of the commitment level towards sustainability and green aspects (i.e., green innovation and innovation performance).
In light of what was mentioned above, this research addresses gaps and recommendations noted in recent studies. Accordingly, the role of green innovation as a mediator between GHRM and innovation performance is a topic that lacks sufficient empirical evidence [18]. This lack is also seen in the literature on environmental leadership and its influence on green and innovative behavior [6]. Additionally, performance in terms of innovation and the effect of a fit leadership style is in need of further examination, especially after the global pandemic of COVID-19 [13]. This is linked to the context of sustainability and green initiatives across industries that has led to various improvements, e.g., [6,17,22,23,24].
The current research aims to obtain empirical evidence from a small island (i.e., Northern Cyprus) to provide a better understanding of the importance of GHRM within the academic sector and at the university level. The innovation performance of academic staff (teachers and administrators) through appropriate HRM, organizational settings (i.e., green innovation) and leadership (i.e., environmental) are assessed in this research, which can contribute to the organizational psychology, leadership, HRM and green behavior literature. Hence, the current study poses a number of questions: (a) can GHRM practices improve innovation performance among academic staff in universities? (b) is there a mediation effect posed on GHRM-innovation performance relationships by green innovation? and (c) can environmental leadership styles enhance innovation performance even further by boosting their linkage with green innovation? This can expand the current understanding and contribute to the literature on leadership, HRM, and innovation in organizations (i.e., universities).

2. Theoretical Framework

There are a number of theories used to address leadership, green performance, and innovation, e.g., [13]. However, considering the aims of current study with regard to its context, specific theories are drawn from the literature that encompass the context of current research and support its premises. The combined premises of these theories enable the researchers to establish a framework, based on which the methodology is designed. Institutional theory is linked to this study, for it encompasses green innovation practices at the organizational level that lead to the recognition of legitimacy when there are pressers (e.g., regulations, normative, and market) [18,24]. This increases the engagement level of the organization towards green and sustainable initiatives. Green innovation entails both strategies and actions that are linked to various departments in an organization (i.e., HRM and leadership). As the core context of this research is GHRM, it is important to note that green innovation and HRM initiatives that are eco-friendly are positively linked and are impactful on a number of green outcomes (e.g., green performance, economic performance, and innovation performance) [18,23]. This institutional setting is used as a theoretical setting, from which the universities included in the research are equipped with GHRM and environmental leadership as a criteria. This ensures that, from an institutional and/or organizational perspective, the universities that have focused on green practices (strategy and action) are included [25,26,27]. This can lead to a better understanding on the importance of having an organization-wide approach towards sustainability that is implemented by HRM and leadership.
Furthermore, social learning theory (SLT) is embedded in the current study as it is a commonly used theory encompassing behavior in workplace settings [28]. The process of learning for individuals occurs through interactions and/or observations (modeling) with others in the context of SLT. Through attention, retention, reproduction, and motivation the model of learning takes place, which in the current context is linked to the organizational setting and leadership approach. The position of leaders as well as the setting that is established by the HRM department are perceived by employees as a reference for learning [18,29]. The social learning theory entails that the context of current study as both GHRM and leadership (i.e., environmental) is considered as influential for innovation within the company (i.e., green innovation). As a result, stakeholders’ views (i.e., employees) are improved towards sustainability and green initiatives, which manifests in their behavior (i.e., innovation performance) [30,31,32,33]. Similarly, Ability, Motivation, Opportunity (AMO) theory [34] is taken into consideration in this study as it highlights the role of HRM in issuing policies, imitative practices, and establishing green settings across all processes (e.g., recruitment, training, performance, rewards, and involvement). This theory encompasses various aspects such as management, teamwork, organizational culture, career development, green jobs, engagement, and wellbeing (psychological and physical) [3,35,36]. In the current study, this theory is used within the context of GHRM to better explain the vitality of green practices at the organizational level to improve the workplace for employees. AMO fits in the current research due to its focus on different elements of HRM activities that are contextualized as GHRM initiatives. GHRM specifically addresses the environment and impact of human activities through green values [3,37].
Social Identity Theory (SIT) explains the concept of self and identity of individuals within organizational settings that can affect behavior [6]. Similar to previously noted theories, SIT is linked to the approach of leaders and the organizational setting that is controlled by HRM activities in correlation with leadership style [29,38]. As the literature calls for empirical evidence regarding the role of green approaches and settings in generating positive outcomes in the behavior of employees [4,6,39], the current study is further driven to examine the relationship between GHRM and innovation performance alongside the impact of green innovation and environmental leadership (see Figure 1). This research argues that appropriate leadership approaches (i.e., environmental) can enhance the sense of identity among employees. The inclusion of this theory can contribute to the current understanding of the influence of leadership and HRM practices on employees’ green identity [6,40,41,42]. Environmental leaders emphasize and act in support of the environment, which implies that resources are given high value. This falls within the context of SIT, which can explain the relationship between organizational settings (i.e., leadership, and HRM) and a sense of identification among employees, particularly regarding the green context. Leaders are able to set pathways for employees to solve issues, communicate ideas, and share knowledge and opinions, which can yield in the short- and long-term changes in the organizations’ cultures [43,44]. This can also be linked to organization identity theory, which encompasses a sense of positive identity towards the firm when environmental concerns are dealt with and organizational goals are achieved through eco-friendly practices ([6]; Chang et al., 2019). This can enhance the success rate of the organization as identification with the company is deepened among employees through beneficial green activities that the organization undertakes.

3. Hypothesis Development

Considering the aforementioned theoretical setting, and the aims of the current study, a number of hypotheses are shaped that are explained in the following sections. The combined premises of the SLT, AMO, and SIT enable the current research to encompass GHRM, green innovation, and environmental leadership in terms of their effects on innovation performance within a structural model (see Figure 1). Taking the aforementioned theoretical setting into account, the following sections highlight the hypotheses of the research, which are followed by detailed information regarding the methodology and procedures of the study. The findings can potentially contribute to the current understanding of the subject at hand, and yield managerial and theoretical implications that can benefit scholars and practitioners alike.

3.1. GHRM and Innovation Performance

The practices, policies, and features of GHRM are in line with sustainable aspects such as social equity, health and wellbeing, behavioral outcomes, and organizational performance [3]. These are inherently defined to have economic, environmental and social contributions. GHRM has been shown to have positive effects on employees’ behavioral outcomes, and specifically environmental, financial, and innovation performance, e.g., [9,13,45,46,47]. However, this is while the literature is in need of empirical evidence regarding the influences of GHRM in different contexts and settings. Referring to the theoretical setting of the research, HRM departments carry a major role in terms of applying green principles, policies, and practices [39,48,49]. Importantly, such activities enable employees to develop their knowledge and expertise regarding green behaviors, which can increase the likelihood of innovative ideas being generated (e.g., eco-innovation) that contribute to the innovation performance of employees. In the current context, education sector employees are more prone to exhibit innovation performance through GHRM as they are constantly involved with knowledge and science (e.g., studies) that focus on improving sustainable and green performance across all levels [3,50]. Innovation performance entails both product innovation and process innovation as its dimensions. Process innovation refers to the adaptation of technologies and innovativeness in the functions of work and its flow (e.g., digitalization), while product innovation can be described as using innovative means to improve services and features (e.g., the deployment of e-learning).
Employees can benefit from GHRM as it provides an array of activities that direct the organizational culture towards sustainability and green practices [1]. As a strategic plan that is implemented in a large organization (i.e., a university), GHRM can significantly improve human capital by enabling innovation and the provision of adequate support (e.g., leadership, rewards, and development). The HRM department has the capability of implementing practices driven by green policies and creating an environment where employees are encouraged to exhibit innovation in their workplace (i.e., tasks, processes, and functions) [9,51]. The current research examines the effect of GHRM and its characteristics (recruitment, performance management, rewards, training, and involvement) on innovation performance as an employee outcome within the academic setting (i.e., universities) [52,53]. The SLT premises enable learning and knowledge sharing within the workplace that can improve employees’ performance. This is similar to the concept of AMO as it guides individuals towards valuable goals. Moreover, through GHRM activities a sense of identity towards the organization can be improved, which can positively influence behavior based on SIT as employees are exposed to various initiatives deployed by the organization that can create a sense of identity beyond work standards.
As the organization creates a green image, it can be an attractive alternative for talent acquisition and recruitment [1]. Recruitment is a dimension of GHRM and is regarded as a highly influential aspect of its activities. Performance management (coded performance in the analysis section) refers to the extent to which the organization encourages professional development among its staff. This is linked to corporate strategy as a crucial aspect within the context of GHRM. Importantly, performance appraisal also falls within this aspect, which is based on feedback, support, and developmental plans [37,53]. The aforementioned developmental plans are manifested through training practices that are deployed by HRM. Particularly in programs in which green values are focused on, the awareness of employees is increased and engagement in conversations is encouraged. Consequently, employees are more likely to exhibit innovation performance [1,13,51,53,54]. GHRM also encompasses a variety of rewards that act as elements for motivating employees’ engagement, and positive behavior/actions. Instances of such rewards can be financial incentives, bonuses, extra holidays, and non-monetary incentives (e.g., tickets, tours, etc.). Lastly, this is linked to the involvement aspect of GHRM, which emphasizes inclusion, empowerment, and the enhancement of communication, morale, and engagement [5,34]. By involving individuals in policy-making decisions, change management, new activities, and developmental practices, desirable outcomes can be achieved (i.e., innovation performance) [55,56]. In light of what has been mentioned, the following hypothesis is shaped:
Hypothesis 1: 
GHRM positively influences innovation performance among teachers and administrators at university level.

3.2. Mediating Role of Green Innovation

Green innovation incorporates both strategies and actions that are driven by expertise, and knowledge on environment, design, and impacts of activities and/or materials on the ecosystem [18]. It can be described as pro-ecological activities that are initiated by employees. Through strategies and actions set by the organization, individuals are enabled by an environment where green activities are promoted. This is linked to various departments in the corporate setting, with leadership and HRM being the key domains under examination in the current research. All aspects of GHRM are embedded within the concept of green innovation as it includes acquiring, maintaining, and creating knowledge, and information with a focus on the environment. These are directed towards employees with the aim of encouraging innovative behavior and rewards, while the organization initiates innovative practices to improve the workplace [57]. Linked to the premises of SLT, it can be stated that green innovation can be promoted through GHRM practices and adequate leadership style (i.e., environmental), which implement green changes in a positive manner that improves performance (i.e., economic, innovation, and job) [14,58,59]. The extent to which the organization is committed to environmental protection and to which leadership exhibits green behavior are crucial determinants of innovation performance that are addressed in the current research [14,49,58]. This addresses the strategic development of activities and plans that focus on green initiatives in the managerial and decision-making levels of the organization, which, combined with implementation (i.e., actions), can generate operations that are sustainably designed. Green innovation strategies incorporate planning, techniques, and the implementation of change, while green innovation actions are operationalized aspects such as policy-making, procedures, management, and functions [60,61].
Upon the implementation of green innovation strategies, actions can include an array of activities that are designed to increase green initiatives, awareness, and expertise, which paves the way for innovative behaviors (i.e., innovation performance) [58,61,62]. This shows that the green innovation as a mediating factor in the current model is linked to both GHRM and innovation performance and productivity (e.g., energy consumption, green processes, green activities, and paperless procedures, air pollution, and material and waste management) [14]. The context of sustainability in the core approach of leaders and the impact on various forms of performance (e.g., frugal, environmental, and social) have been noted in recent studies [13,60]. Green innovation enables the organization to positively influence stakeholders’ views, while decreasing environmental negative effects through a variety of eco-friendly activities, policies, and standards. Having engaged, aware, and motivated employees through the provision of diverse green activities establishes an environment where green innovation can become vivid. This is due to all aspects of work being involved in sustainably improving the workplace and its features [3]. Linked to the premises of SIT, it can be stated that having such an environment can nurture a sense of identity among employees, leading to improved innovation performance. This can be achieved through learning, teamwork, and the culture and climate of the firm that is controlled by its leadership and HRM. Following this argument, the following hypothesis is developed:
Hypothesis 2: 
Green innovation mediates the relationship between GHRM and innovation performance in the context of the academic sector in a small island.

3.3. Moderating Role of Environmental Leadership

Environmental leaders possess a number of traits that fit within the current context, as the emphasis is upon GHRM and its effects on innovation performance among university staff. The values and actions that are directed towards the environment are shared with staff in an environmental leadership approach [18,63,64]. This style of leader engages in behaviors that provide direct information, clear guidelines, positive communications, and encouragement towards green behaviors [9,34,65]. Furthermore, such leaders motivate their followers to engage in green activities, undertake different initiatives to enhance expertise, and encourage innovation performance in a green setting [57]. The effect of such behavior is manifested at various levels within the firm as change management strategically moves towards green activities through leadership and HRM framework [6,18]. As a result, this can yield positive performance outcomes on a company scale (e.g., environmental, innovation, and economic) [66]. SIT is linked to the behavior of environmental leaders as they can trigger sense of identification among their staff through care and proactivity towards the environment. Employees will develop a sense of identity towards their organization as leaders communicate solutions and challenge environmental issues [6]. Similarly, SLT can manifest itself through learning opportunities that the environmental leader provides by their actions and/or support for green innovation [18,66].
Reaching eco-friendly goals is encouraged by environmental leaders, which impacts stakeholders’ view (i.e., customers, and employees) [67,68]. As green values are introduced, strategically implemented, and promoted within the organization, environmental leaders are taken into consideration as a driving force of change towards sustainable activities, networks, policies, and operations. Such leaders also provide a path towards the future by emphasizing sustainable issues and seeking solutions through innovative means [57,66,67,68]. Employees within organizations are prompted to take green actions and share innovative ideas that can aid the leader in improving the workplace and the wellbeing of their staff. This improves the organizational culture via green innovation that supports innovation performance [20]. This suggests that a moderating impact can be posed by environmental leadership on the green innovation–innovation performance relationship. The literature supports the current argument, as reports show the influence of this leadership style on innovation, green settings, and behaviors, e.g., [6,17,18,68,69]. The following hypothesis is shaped in the light of what was mentioned:
Hypothesis 3: 
The positive effect of GHRM on green innovation will be stronger for universities due to the enhancing impact of EL.

4. Methodology and Design

4.1. Sampling

For calculating the sample size necessary for the current study, G*power was used [70] using a criteria that fits the current model (statistical power = 0.85; effect size = 0.01; α = 0.01; and Min R2 = 0.10). The resulting sample size was 133, which was cross-checked with statistical references, e.g., [71], leading to an increased sample size of 182. This quantitative approach was deployed through a purposive and convenience sampling method. Purposive sampling enabled the researchers to target universities that have GHRM initiatives in their settings and agendas, and also environmental leadership existing in at least one of their departments. This was established by researchers using networks, visits, and several meetings with HRM departments to ensure the selected university was a fit for the current context. Additionally, this process complied with ethical means of research conduct as necessary permissions were granted and relevant managers were informed of the data collection process and aims of the research. A pilot test was deployed using 30 academic staff (both administration staff and teachers) from a university, which was excluded from the final data collection. The results of the pilot test confirmed the readability and understandability of the survey. Staff who were qualified for the study were those who were managed by environmental leaders, and their departments were selected purposively. At this stage, any willing and available employee was welcome to participate in the research using a convenience sampling technique. A total of 230 questionnaires were distributed among teachers and administrative staff of 3 different universities across Northern Cyprus. After the deletion of 3 responses due to incomplete answers, with a response rate of 81.3%, a total of 187 surveys qualified for the final analysis.

4.2. Measurements

The survey begins with a number of general demographic questions (i.e., age, gender, work experience). Due to the nature of this research, additional personal information is not essential and thus such data are not collected. For measuring GHRM, its dimensions were defined as green recruitment (e.g., people with green awareness are recruited in our company), training (e.g., different training programs are held to improve knowledge, skill and awareness of employees towards environment), performance (e.g., the organization defines goals and responsibilities for employees at all levels), rewards (e.g., our organization recognizes and rewards environmental initiatives), and involvement (e.g., the university focuses on improving environmental protection and its culture in the organization) [5]. Environmental leadership (EL) is examined based on the early scale that is commonly used in the literature [72], which is addressed using five questions (e.g., our leader values green innovations in the workplace). Furthermore, green innovation practices and characteristics (i.e., strategies, and actions) are measured using a valid and commonly deployed scale [73] (e.g., there is a long-term vision for green innovation in the university; improving processes to reduce energy consumption is encouraged). Each dimension comprised two indicators. For assessing innovation performance, two dimensions, namely process innovation and product innovation, were included in the survey using a scale used commonly in the literature [10] (e.g., university uses new technologies; the university is quick to adopt new technologies). All questions were designed in a 5-item Likert scale ranging from 1 = totally disagree to 5 = totally agree. A sample of the survey is attached in the Supplementary Materials of this manuscript.
The number of employees in the university and years since its establishment were taken into account as control variables due to their potential impacts on performance and green innovation [18]. Moreover, the demographic characteristics of participants were controlled following the existing literature, e.g., [18,74]. Various aspects were considered to decrease common method bias and comply with ethical means of conduct, namely informing all participants of the purposes and the context of the study; assurance of data confidentiality and anonymity to each participant [75]; proximal separation [76], where daily activities are asked about in the survey; and a collinearity test, in which variance inflation factor (VIF) values were found to be below 3.3 [77], stating that common method bias is of no concern in the current dataset.

4.3. Respondents’ Profile

From 187 respondents, women had a higher participation rate (58%) when compared to male counterparts (42%). Average age was found to be 34.6 with standard deviation of 5.7, while average work experience was found to be 4.3 years (SD = 5.4). Universities were found to be in business for at least 10 years with an estimate of 1000 academic employees (i.e., teachers, assistants, administrative, and clerks).

5. Analysis and Results

To analyze the proposed model of the research, partial least squares structural equation modeling is deemed an appropriate technique as the current model includes latent variables, follows a specific criteria for statistical power considering a small sample size, and disregards the normality of distributions, which fits the recommended criteria for using this method [71].

5.1. Measurement Model Assessment

The results in Table 1 show a satisfactory threshold for measurement model, where outer loadings are above 0.708 [78]; internal consistency (Rho A, α, and composite reliability–CR) is between 0.7 and 0.9 [79,80,81]; average variance extracted (AVE) is found to be above 0.5, stating appropriate convergent validity [71]; and, as noted earlier, VIF values are below 3.3, which states that there are no multicollinearity issues [77].
Each variable and the dimensions, as well as indicators, are coded with regard to the questionnaire survey (see Supplementary Materials). The current model includes all the noted dimensions in Table 1. The same codes are applied in the data analysis processes that are presented in Table 2 and Table 3.
Discriminant validity is also examined at the measurement model assessment stage, in which heterotrait-monotrait (HTMT) ration is found to be below 0.85 as the satisfactory threshold [82].

5.2. Structural Model Assessment

The structural model and hypotheses of the research are examined in Table 3, with results showing a good ‘model fit’ as normal fit index (NFI = 0.920) and the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR = 0.024) [83]. Multicollinearity was found to be of no concern (see Table 1) [78], and both predictive power (R-squared) and predictive relevance (Q-squared) have values that are within the acceptable thresholds [84].

5.3. Discussions

Referring to the results of hypothesis testing (Table 3), it can be interpreted that within a small island setting GHRM practices and activities can significantly improve innovation performance from the perspective of academic employees (i.e., teachers and administrators). This supports the first hypothesis of the research (β = 0.303, t = 4.203), and shows consensus with the existing literature on the subject (e.g., [3,29,45,54,56]). It can be stated that, within academic institutions, employees that are in constant interaction with students are able to perform innovatively due to the established environment through GHRM policies that improve workplace setting. The importance of GHRM and its influence on innovation performance is vital in the education sector due to its highly demanding setting, as well as its complexity and social, economic, and environmental impact [53,55].
The mediating role of green innovation has been found to be statistically significant in the current results (see Table 3), which states that by having an environment where green strategies are implemented in the core strategic planning of the firm, green innovation activities can significantly improve the behavior of employees towards innovative behavior in their jobs. This supports the second hypothesis of the study (β = 0.142, t = 2.852). While similar findings have been reported in the extant literature, e.g., [3,14,58,61], the current results contribute to the understanding of SIT in the academic sector, and specifically universities. GHRM practices, policies, and initiatives can have a higher impact on the workplace environment, culture, and climate, which in turn benefits the company through an enhanced stakeholder view, improved employee performance, and increased innovation in the workplace.
As the results show, the third hypothesis of the research is also supported (β = 0.153, t = 2.602). The role of environmental leadership in green innovation and innovation performance was found to be enhancing, which suggests that such leaders can greatly improve the workplace environment for employees and enable them to engage in innovative behavior to solve issues and/or perform tasks. Similar findings have been found in the extant literature on the subject, which shows a consensus among scholars, e.g., [6,9,10,13,18,60,69]. The results pertain to the theoretical framework of the research as (a) SLT can be witnessed via its applicability to leaders’ and organizations’ role-model influence that can foster learning for employees; (b) in SIT, leaders and the practices of the organization can trigger a sense of identification as they encompass eco-friendliness and sustainability in their strategies; and (c) AMO theory is observed as GHRM practices are tailored to skills, motivational needs, and developmental opportunities for the staff. The theoretical implications derived from the results are provided in the following sections.

6. Conclusions

The contributions of this research are manifold as the current results reflect both theoretical and practical interpretations that can benefit scholars from various fields (e.g., leadership, organizational behavior, and psychology) and decision-makers at university level. The results are reflected upon, and implications for theory and practice are highlighted in the following sections, where contributions of current research are noted.
This research endeavors to understand the effect of GHRM on innovation performance among employees in universities. Through PLS-SEM, it was found that the direct effect of GHRM is evident among employees’ innovative performance in the workplace. Additionally, green innovation exhibits mediation mechanisms that can better link GHRM to employees’ performance (i.e., innovation). The results also show that environmental leaders can greatly enhance innovation performance due to their influence on the managerial approach of the organization, positive communications (e.g., knowledge and information sharing) with employees, and green advocacy. The findings of this study show consensus with the existing body of knowledge in the literature. The contributions of the current result are (a) obtaining empirical evidence addressing GHRM and environmental leadership as noted gaps and recommendations in the recent literature, i.e., [6,18,19,23,48]; (b) including green innovation as a mediating variable and environmental leaderships as a moderating factor to enhance innovation performance can pave the way for better understanding of underlying effects and the interconnectedness of different elements in the context of leadership and HRM; (c) examining Northern Cyprus as a small island as a case study can be used as a comparative finding to improve sustainability in the education sector of similar locations; and (d) managerial levels at universities can benefit from these findings as they highlight the roles of adequate leadership style and appropriate HRM activities in improving stakeholders’ views (i.e., employees) and improve performance across the organization by encouraging innovation and green activities.

6.1. Theoretical Implications

The current study contributes to the institutional theory within the scope of green innovation that improves the perception and behavior of stakeholders towards the organization [18]. This implies that with increased awareness and growing concerns towards environmental issues, companies are further pressured to take initiatives in this regard. Hence, green strategies and actions become apparent within the firm, which in turn leads to the improved innovation performance of university employees (i.e., teachers and administrators). Following what was noted, the organization can initiate GHRM within its strategic planning to include recruitment, training, rewards, performance management, and involvement. This can be linked to social learning theory, where employees are motivated to show green behavior and innovation in their jobs by having opportunities to imitate in the workplace (i.e., through training and development programs, and leadership behavior). Employees in the academic sector can have a higher expertise level, and awareness towards sustainability concerns and issues which can reflect in their teaching methods and manifest as innovation performance [30,31,32].
The obtained results further expand the application and understanding of Ability, Motivation, and Opportunity (AMO) theory in the context of small island education sectors. The current results show the role of HRM practices in improving innovation performance, which cannot be neglected. Employees should be motivated and provided with opportunities of personal and/or professional development, which increase their abilities. This has been reported as a consensus among a number of studies in the extant literature, e.g., [3,12,20,35,36]. This implies that the AMO theory explains the linkage between GHRM initiatives and positive performance outcomes as it encompasses team settings, leadership, organizational climate and culture, training, and green development. Such undertakings can have an ultimately positive influence on the wellbeing of individuals within the academic workplace. Lastly, social identity theory is implied in the current results as the behavior of employees is affected through activities, policies, and commitments of the organization, HRM practices, and leadership style [6,38]. The current findings suggest that employees can have a better innovation performance when green initiatives are implemented in HRM activities and policies, and further supported through an environmental leadership which promotes green behavior, innovation, wellbeing, and long-term sustainability [6,40,41,43]. The aforementioned theoretical understandings have led to practical implications that are highlighted in the following section.

6.2. Practical Implications

This research highlights implications for HRM departments and decision makers at the university level. Considering green initiatives, innovation, and the management of universities, it is essential for decision-makers to establish green strategies. This implies that HRM departments in universities can plan and strategize green initiatives, practices, and policies that can be implemented within the organization to improve green innovation. At an organizational level, green initiatives can be implemented in structures (e.g., indoor air quality, ventilation, energy consumption, lighting, and waste management). In turn, a decrease in the overall ecological impacts of various university facilities and buildings through establishing energy efficient systems, using green energy, and implementing better resource management can be achieved. Similarly, online platforms can significantly reduce materials needed in office for teachers and administrators in the university. As e-learning platforms have improved during and after the global pandemic, staff can have autonomy in using online tools and show innovation in their work. This can further be used in an integrated manner as organizational platforms for HRM initiatives. Training and developmental programs such as classes, seminars, and workshops can be highly influential in delivering modern knowledge to employees while providing a platform for sharing information and expertise in an innovative manner. The aforementioned training programs can be significant as they can further manifest in teachings of teachers, and exchanges between administrators and students, leading to an educational environment where eco-friendly behavior is encouraged and rewarded, and innovative actions are commonplace to help the ecosystem and have a positive economic, social, and environmental impact.

7. Limitations and Future Research

This study is limited by the availability of studies in the literature assessing sustainability and green behavior among small islands, which was a driver for its conduct. Scholars can examine other small islands in different regions to provide a better understanding of the notion of innovations performance and the role of GHRM. As the data for this research were collected in a cross-sectional manner, the generalizability of the results is limited. Future studies can overcome this limitation through collecting longitudinal data that can examine employees’ performance and/or perception before and after GHRM initiatives are introduced or implemented. Sample size is also a limit of this research as data were collected from three different universities. Future studies can scale the size to have a better sample representativeness. Moreover, qualitative studies can obtain in-depth data from the experiences of individuals (e.g., employees and/or managers) that can result in a better understanding of underlying effects as well as important traits. This study was also limited by the theoretical and operational boundaries, where other factors such as engagement, wellbeing, organizational support, and leader–member exchange are not included. Hence, future studies can include the aforementioned factors to further expand the implications of the current findings.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/su15054158/s1. Survey. References [5,10,61,72,73] are cited in the Supplementary Materials.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.B. and P.F.; methodology, P.F.; software, A.H.K.; validation, P.F. and S.B.; formal analysis, S.B.; investigation, S.B.; resources, S.B.; data curation, S.B.; writing—original draft preparation, S.B.; writing—review and editing, P.F.; visualization, A.H.K.; supervision, P.F.; project administration, P.F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from the respondents of the survey.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Ahmad, S. Green human resource management: Policies and practices. Cogent Bus. Manag. 2015, 2, 1030817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Mousa, S.K.; Othman, M. The impact of green human resource management practices on sustainable performance in healthcare organisations: A conceptual framework. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 243, 118595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Amrutha, V.N.; Geetha, S.N. A systematic review on green human resource management: Implications for social sustainability. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 247, 119131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Saeed, B.B.; Afsar, B.; Hafeez, S.; Khan, I.; Tahir, M.; Afridi, M.A. Promoting employee’s proenvironmental behavior through green human resource management practices. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2019, 26, 424–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Tang, G.; Chen, Y.; Jiang, Y.; Paillé, P.; Jia, J. Green human resource management practices: Scale development and validity. Asia Pac. J. Hum. Resour. 2018, 56, 31–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Xu, B.; Gao, X.; Cai, W.; Jiang, L. How Environmental Leadership Boosts Employees’ Green Innovation Behavior? A Moderated Mediation Model. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 689671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Colbert, B.A.; Kurucz, E.C. Three conceptions of triple bottom line business sustainability and the role for HRM. People Strategy 2007, 30, 21. [Google Scholar]
  8. Alegre, J.; Lapiedra, R.; Chiva, R. A measurement scale for product innovation performance. Eur. J. Innov. Manag. 2006, 9, 333–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Singh, S.K.; Del Giudice, M.; Chierici, R.; Graziano, D. Green innovation and environmental performance: The role of green transformational leadership and green human resource management. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2020, 150, 119762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Prajogo, D.I.; Ahmed, P.K. Relationships between innovation stimulus, innovation capacity, and innovation performance. R&D Manag. 2006, 36, 499–515. [Google Scholar]
  11. Rehman, S.U.; Kraus, S.; Shah, S.A.; Khanin, D.; Mahto, R.V. Analyzing the relationship between green innovation and environmental performance in large manufacturing firms. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2021, 163, 120481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Khawand, S.; Zargar, P. Job autonomy and work-life conflict: A conceptual analysis of teachers’ wellbeing during COVID-19 pandemic. Front. Psychol. 2022, 13, 4246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Xuecheng, W.; Iqbal, Q. Managerial Networking and Frugal Innovation: Situational Leadership Perspective. Front. Psychol. 2022, 13, 948530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Wang, C.H. How organizational green culture influences green performance and competitive advantage: The mediating role of green innovation. J. Manuf. Technol. Manag. 2019, 30, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Chen, Y.S.; Chang, T.W.; Lin, C.Y.; Lai, P.Y.; Wang, K.H. The influence of proactive green innovation and reactive green innovation on green product development performance: The mediation role of green creativity. Sustainability 2016, 8, 966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Zargar, P.; Sousan, A.; Farmanesh, P. Does trust in leader mediate the servant leadership style–job satisfaction relationship? Manag. Sci. Lett. 2019, 9, 2253–2268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Zhang, Q.; Ma, Y. The impact of environmental management on firm economic performance: The mediating effect of green innovation and the moderating effect of environmental leadership. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 292, 126057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Su, X.; Xu, A.; Lin, W.; Chen, Y.; Liu, S.; Xu, W. Environmental leadership, green innovation practices, environmental knowledge learning, and firm performance. Sage Open 2020, 10, 2158244020922909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Kutieshat, R.; Farmanesh, P. The Impact of New Human Resource Management Practices on Innovation Performance during the COVID 19 Crisis: A New Perception on Enhancing the Educational Sector. Sustainability 2022, 14, 2872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. EL Telyani, A.; Farmanesh, P.; Zargar, P. An Examination of the Relationship Between Levels Diversity-Organizational Performance: Does Innovative Culture Matter? Sage Open 2022, 12, 21582440211067244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Mittal, S.; Dhar, R.L. Effect of green transformational leadership on green creativity: A study of tourist hotels. Tour. Manag. 2016, 57, 118–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Hennemann, J.N.; Draser, B.; Stofkova, K.R. The Green Business and Sustainable Development School—A Case Study for an Innovative Educational Concept to Prevent Big Ideas from Failure. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1943. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Wang, H.; Khan, M.A.S.; Anwar, F.; Shahzad, F.; Adu, D.; Murad, M. Green innovation practices and its impacts on environmental and organizational performance. Front. Psychol. 2021, 11, 553625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Uvarova, I.; Mavlutova, I.; Atstaja, D. Development of the green entrepreneurial mindset through modern entrepreneurship education. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science; IOP Publishing: Bristol, UK, 2021; Volume 628, p. 012034. [Google Scholar]
  25. Yusoff, Y.M.; Nejati, M. A conceptual model of green HRM adoption towards sustainability in hospitality industry. In Corporate Social Responsibility: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2019; pp. 400–421. [Google Scholar]
  26. Marrucci, L.; Daddi, T.; Iraldo, F. Institutional and stakeholder pressures on organisational performance and green human resources management. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2022, 30, 324–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Gilal, F.G.; Ashraf, Z.; Gilal, R.G.; Chaana, N.A. Promoting environmental performance through green human resource management practices in higher education institutions: A moderated mediation model. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2019, 26, 1579–1590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Bandura, A.; Walters, R.H. Social Learning Theory; Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1977; Volume 1. [Google Scholar]
  29. Brown, R. Social identity theory: Past achievements, current problems and future challenges. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 2000, 30, 745–778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Darvishmotevali, M.; Altinay, L. Green HRM, environmental awareness and green behaviors: The moderating role of servant leadership. Tour. Manag. 2022, 88, 104401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Islam, T.; Hussain, D.; Ahmed, I.; Sadiq, M. Ethical leadership and environment specific discretionary behaviour: The mediating role of green human resource management and moderating role of individual green values. Can. J. Adm. Sci. Rev. Can. des Sci. de L’administration 2021, 38, 442–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Ahmad, S.; Islam, T.; Sadiq, M.; Kaleem, A. Promoting green behavior through ethical leadership: A model of green human resource management and environmental knowledge. Leadersh. Organ. Dev. J. 2021, 42, 531–547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Zoogah, D.B. The dynamics of Green HRM behaviors: A cognitive social information processing approach. Ger. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2011, 25, 117–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Renwick, D.W.; Redman, T.; Maguire, S. Green human resource management: A review and research agenda. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 2013, 15, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Benevene, P.; Buonomo, I. Green human resource management: An evidence-based systematic literature review. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5974. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Zaid, A.A.; Jaaron, A.A.; Bon, A.T. The impact of green human resource management and green supply chain management practices on sustainable performance: An empirical study. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 204, 965–979. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Renwick, D.W.; Jabbour, C.J.; Muller-Camen, M.; Redman, T.; Wilkinson, A. Contemporary developments in Green (environmental) HRM scholarship. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2016, 27, 114–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Hogg, M.A. Social identity theory. In Understanding Peace and Conflict Through Social Identity Theory; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 3–17. [Google Scholar]
  39. Shah, M. Green human resource management: Development of a valid measurement scale. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2019, 28, 771–785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Wang, X.; Xiao, H.; Chen, K.; Niu, X. Why administrative leaders take pro-environmental leadership actions: Evidence from an eco-compensation programme in China. Environ. Policy Gov. 2020, 30, 385–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Song, W.; Wang, G.Z.; Ma, X. Environmental innovation practices and green product innovation performance: A perspective from organizational climate. Sustain. Dev. 2020, 28, 224–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Shen, J.; Dumont, J.; Deng, X. Employees’ perceptions of green HRM and non-green employee work outcomes: The social identity and stakeholder perspectives. Group Organ. Manag. 2018, 43, 594–622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Lede, E.; Meleady, R.; Seger, C.R. Optimizing the influence of social norms interventions: Applying social identity insights to motivate residential water conservation. J. Environ. Psychol. 2019, 62, 105–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Fatoki, O. Hotel employees’ pro-environmental behaviour: Effect of leadership behaviour, institutional support and workplace spirituality. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Kim, Y.J.; Kim, W.G.; Choi, H.M.; Phetvaroon, K. The effect of green human resource management on hotel employees’ eco-friendly behavior and environmental performance. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2019, 76, 83–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Pham, N.T.; Thanh, T.V.; Tučková, Z.; Thuy, V.T.N. The role of green human resource management in driving hotel’s environmental performance: Interaction and mediation analysis. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2020, 88, 102392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. O’Donohue, W.; Torugsa, N. The moderating effect of ‘Green’HRM on the association between proactive environmental management and financial performance in small firms. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2016, 27, 239–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Chreif, M.; Farmanesh, P. Applying Green Human Resource Practices toward Sustainable Workplace: A Moderated Mediation Analysis. Sustainability 2022, 14, 9250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Huang, X.X.; Hu, Z.P.; Liu, C.S.; Yu, D.J.; Yu, L.F. The relationships between regulatory and customer pressure, green organizational responses, and green innovation performance. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 112, 3423–3433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Mehta, K.; Chugan, P.K. Green HRM in pursuit of environmentally sustainable business. Pursuit of Environmentally Sustainable Business (June 1, 2015). Univers. J. Ind. Bus. Manag. 2015, 3, 74–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Chang, C.H. The determinants of green product innovation performance. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2016, 23, 65–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Yong, J.Y.; Yusliza, M.Y.; Ramayah, T.; Fawehinmi, O. Nexus between green intellectual capital and green human resource management. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 215, 364–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Anwar, N.; Mahmood, N.H.N.; Yusliza, M.Y.; Ramayah, T.; Faezah, J.N.; Khalid, W. Green Human Resource Management for organisational citizenship behaviour towards the environment and environmental performance on a university campus. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 256, 120401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Bahuguna, P.C.; Srivastava, R.; Tiwari, S. Two-decade journey of green human resource management research: A bibliometric analysis. Benchmarking 2022, 30, 585–602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Aftab, J.; Abid, N.; Cucari, N.; Savastano, M. Green human resource management and environmental performance: The role of green innovation and environmental strategy in a developing country. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Parida, S.; Brown, K. Green Human Resource Management and Green Innovation. In Responsible Management in Emerging Markets; Palgrave Macmillan: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 159–183. [Google Scholar]
  57. Li, J.; Zhang, H.; Xie, L. Environmental knowledge learning, green innovation behavior and environmental performance. Sci. Technol. Prog. Count. 2019, 36, 122–128. [Google Scholar]
  58. Kraus, S.; Rehman, S.U.; García, F.J.S. Corporate social responsibility and environmental performance: The mediating role of environmental strategy and green innovation. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2020, 160, 120262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Nanath, K.; Pillai, R.R. The influence of green is practices on competitive advantage: Mediation role of green innovation performance. Inf. Syst. Manag. 2017, 34, 3–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Iqbal, Q.; Ahmad, N.H.; Li, Z.; Li, Y. To walk in beauty: Sustainable leadership, frugal innovation and environmental performance. Manag. Decis. Econ. 2022, 43, 738–750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Soewarno, N.; Tjahjadi, B.; Fithrianti, F. Green innovation strategy and green innovation: The roles of green organizational identity and environmental organizational legitimacy. Manag. Decis. 2019, 57, 3061–3078. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Bani-Melhem, S.; Al-Hawari, M.A.; Shamsudin, F. Green innovation performance: A multi-level analysis in the hotel sector. J. Sustain. Tour. 2022, 30, 1878–1896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Portugal, E.; Yukl, G. Perspectives on environmental leadership. Leadersh. Q. 1994, 5, 271–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Dechant, K.; Altman, B. Environmental leadership: From compliance to competitive advantage. Acad. Manag. Perspect. 1994, 8, 7–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Robertson, J.L.; Barling, J. Greening organizations through leaders’ influence on employees’ pro-environmental behaviors. J. Organ. Behav. 2013, 34, 176–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Liu, J.; Yuan, Y.; Zhang, J. Environmental leadership in organizations: A literature review and prospects. Econ. Manag. J. 2018, 40, 193–208. [Google Scholar]
  67. Jang, Y.J.; Zheng, T.; Bosselman, R. Top managers’ environmental values, leadership, and stakeholder engagement in promoting environmental sustainability in the restaurant industry. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2017, 63, 101–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Moe, T.L. Aiming for resilience and adaptation in managing environment: An emerging environmental and emergency leadership in the twenty-first century. Int. J. Disaster Resil. Built Environ. 2012, 3, 42–51. [Google Scholar]
  69. Jiang, Y.; Asante, D.; Zhang, J.; Cao, M. The effects of environmental factors on low-carbon innovation strategy: A study of the executive environmental leadership in China. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 266, 121998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Faul, F.; Erdfelder, E.; Lang, A.G.; Buchner, A. G* power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav. Res. Methods 2007, 39, 175–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Hair, J.F.; Hult, G.T.M.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM); Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  72. Bass, B.M.; Bass Bernard, M. Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations; The Free Press: New York, NY, USA, 1985. [Google Scholar]
  73. Zhang, B.; Wang, Z.; Lai, K.H. Mediating effect of managers’ environmental concern: Bridge between external pressures and firms’ practices of energy conservation in China. J. Environ. Psychol. 2015, 43, 203–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Dumont, J.; Shen, J.; Deng, X. Effects of green HRM practices on employee workplace green behavior: The role of psychological green climate and employee green values. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2017, 56, 613–627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B.; Lee, J.Y.; Podsakoff, N.P. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 2003, 88, 879–903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Jordan, P.J.; Troth, A.C. Common method bias in applied settings: The dilemma of researching in organizations. Austr. J. Manag. 2020, 45, 3–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Kock, N. Common method bias in PLS-SEM: A full collinearity assessment approach. Int. J. Collab. 2015, 11, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  78. Hair, J.F.; Risher, J.J.; Sarstedt, M.; Ringle, C.M. When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. Eur. Bus. Rev. 2019, 31, 2–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Dijkstra, T.K.; Henseler, J. Consistent partial least squares path modeling. MIS Q. 2015, 39, 297–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Diamantopoulos, A.; Sarstedt, M.; Fuchs, C.; Wilczynski, P.; Kaiser, S. Guidelines for choosing between multi-item and single-item scales for construct measurement: A predictive validity perspective. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2012, 40, 434–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  81. Jöreskog, K.G. Simultaneous factor analysis in several populations. Psychometrika 1971, 36, 409–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Henseler, J.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2015, 43, 115–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  83. Henseler, J.; Dijkstra, T.K.; Sarstedt, M.; Ringle, C.M.; Diamantopoulos, A.; Straub, D.W.; Ketchen, D.J.; Hair, J.F.; Hult, G.T.M.; Calantone, R. Common beliefs and reality about PLS: Comments on rönkkö and evermann (2013). Organiz. Res. Methods 2014, 17, 182–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  84. Henseler, J.; Ringle, C.M.; Sinkovics, R.R. The use of partial least squares path modeling in international marketing. In New Challenges to International Marketing; Sinkovics, R.R., Ghauri, P.N., Eds.; Emerald Group Publishing Limited: Bingley, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar]
Sustainability 15 04158 g001 550
Figure 1. Research model.
Figure 1. Research model.
Sustainability 15 04158 g001
Table
Table 1. Measurement Model Assessment.
Table 1. Measurement Model Assessment.
ConstructDimensionsIndicatorOuter LoadingsαRho ACRAVEVIFWeightst-Stat.CV
GHRM
α = 0.808
CV = 0.719		Green RecruitmentGR10.7240.8110.8210.8130.6511.9740.3782.310 **0.722
GR20.8510.4052.201 **
TrainingTR10.8610.7970.8120.7270.7331.7620.3892.109 *0.726
TR20.8330.3804.011 **
PerformancePM10.8400.7650.7450.7190.7152.3480.5233.308 **0.730
PM20.7650.4402.304 *
RewardRW10.9510.7760.7360.7240.7082.3700.3952.350 **0.742
RW20.8470.3762.121 *
InvolvementIV10.8150.7610.7610.7680.7321.8530.4233.234 *0.721
IV20.8230.4063.001 *
Innovation Performance
α = 0.814
CV = 0.703		Product InnovationPRD10.8410.8340.8670.8080.7481.8640.4133.121 *0.729
PRD20.8150.4462.235 *
Process InnovationPRC10.8800.7900.7840.7930.7261.8770.5022.110 *0.711
PRC20.7570.3892.346 *
Environmental Leadership EL10.8590.8690.9010.8540.598-
EL20.847
EL30.849
EL40.818
EL50.831
Green Innovation
α = 0.788
CV = 0.730		Strategies GIS10.7360.7660.8320.7890.6411.8930.4332.334 *0.734
GIS20.7670.4282.231 *
ActionsGIA10.7460.8110.82440.863 1.9460.3992.183 *0.749
GIA20.7440.7110.4112.447 *
* 0.05, ** 0.01; GHRM = green human resource management; GR = green recruitment; TR = training; PM = performance management; RW = rewards; IV = involvement; PRD = product innovation; PRC = process innovation; EL = environmental leadership; GIA = green innovation actions; GIS = green innovation strategies.
Table
Table 2. Heterotrait-Monotrait ratio (HTMT) values.
Table 2. Heterotrait-Monotrait ratio (HTMT) values.
GHRMGRTRPMRWIVPRDPRCELGIA
GR0.734
TR0.4560.565
PM0.7010.6210.748
RW0.5980.7660.6560.729
IV0.7230.4280.6170.7060.827
PRD0.7160.7230.7430.7420.7400.810
PRC0.6250.6130.7020.6690.7320.7520.732
EL0.6630.6120.7190.7320.7540.6440.7120.778
GIS0.6760.4860.7890.5540.5200.6150.6780.7170.7200.701
GHRM = green human resource management; GR = green recruitment; TR = training; PM = performance management; RW = rewards; IV = involvement; PRD = product innovation; PRC = process innovation; EL = environmental leadership; GIA = green innovation actions; GIS = green innovation strategies. See Supplementary Materials for details of the survey.
Table
Table 3. Hypothesis Testing.
Table 3. Hypothesis Testing.
EffectsRelationsβt-StatisticsƑ2Decision
Direct
H1GHRM → IP0.3034.023 ***0.132Supported
Mediation
H2GHRM → GI → IP0.1422.852 **0.033Supported
Moderation
H3EL*GI → IP0.1532.602 **0.036Supported
Control VariablesSize → IP0.1212.210 *
Company → IP0.1192.239 **
Age → IP0.1222.077 *
Gender → IP0.1272.228 *
Experience → IP0.1202.164 *
* 0.05, ** 0.01, *** 0.001; R2IP = 0.43/Q2IP = 0.23; R2GI = 0.54/Q2GI = 0.32; SRMR: 0.024; NFI: 0.920; IP = innovation performance; GHRM = green human resource management; GI = green innovation; EL = environmental leadership; GHRM is formed through its dimensions (i.e., recruitment, performance, training, reward, involvement); IP is shaped via product and process innovation; and GI is defined by its dimensions that are strategies and actions. Variables and items are presented in the Supplementary Materials.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Bahmani, S.; Farmanesh, P.; Khademolomoom, A.H. Effects of Green Human Resource Management on Innovation Performance through Green Innovation: Evidence from Northern Cyprus on Small Island Universities. Sustainability 2023, 15, 4158. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15054158

AMA Style

Bahmani S, Farmanesh P, Khademolomoom AH. Effects of Green Human Resource Management on Innovation Performance through Green Innovation: Evidence from Northern Cyprus on Small Island Universities. Sustainability. 2023; 15(5):4158. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15054158

Chicago/Turabian Style

Bahmani, Sirous, Panteha Farmanesh, and Amir Hossein Khademolomoom. 2023. "Effects of Green Human Resource Management on Innovation Performance through Green Innovation: Evidence from Northern Cyprus on Small Island Universities" Sustainability 15, no. 5: 4158. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15054158

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop