Employee Readiness for GHRM and Its Individual Antecedents: Instrumental and Change-Based Approach

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to identify and assess the formation of employees’ readiness to implement the green human resources management (GHRM) concept according to two research approaches: an instrumental and change-based approach, as well as to demonstrate the influence of selected individual antecedents on the formation of this readiness in business practice. The aim of the study was achieved through empirical research conducted using a survey method on a sample of 214 employees and managers from Poland. The results obtained indicate a high level of readiness of the respondents to implement the GHRM concept in their companies, regardless of the measurement method used. Moreover, it was shown that personal environmental norms, following the new environmental paradigm as well as organizational citizenship behaviors towards the environment (OCBE), significantly and positively shape the level of readiness for GHRM in the surveyed group. In contrast, there was no significant effect of individual readiness for change on employees’ readiness levels. This study makes an original and novel contribution to the literature by proposing different approaches to measuring employees’ GHRM readiness. The conclusions formulated address the implementation factors of the GHRM, enabling a more effective implementation of this concept into business practice.

1. Introduction

Green human resources management (GHRM) is a relatively new, powerful, and far-reaching tool for aligning employees with a company’s environmental strategy [1]. It integrates concepts of environmental management and human resources management to develop green abilities, motivate green employees and provide green opportunities by rooting sustainability in the center of the organization’s HR processes [2]. In this context, it facilitates the implementation of the concept of sustainable development in organizations, which, according to P.S. Ragavendran [3], involves a broader implementation of green management objectives. GHRM is also a key component of HR sustainable management, which includes the ecological context as the base of HR-related decisions to promote behaviors that facilitate the improvement of a company’s environmental performance [4].

This theoretical background provides a starting point for research on the use of GHRM concepts in business practice. Contemporary enterprises face many complex and forward-looking challenges related to environmental management [5], environmental stewardship [6], sustainable development [7], corporate social responsibility [8], bottom-up management [9], and sustainable human resource management [10]. This rationalizes and motivates research on the readiness to implement the GHRM concept in business practice.

Many past and current studies confirm the high effectiveness of GHRM in improving environmental performance considered at different levels (mainly on the individual and organizational level), in different types of organizations [4,11,12,13]. A weakness of the analyses to date, however, is the paucity of attention paid to the issue of readiness to the implementation of the concept in business practice.

To date, research in this field has focused on identifying individual perceptions of the importance of GHRM practices [14] as well as on organizational [15] and country readiness for GHRM [16]. In addition, in the study of T.M. Qureshi, A. Singh, and B.N. Almessabi [17] GHRM readiness is considered as a mediator between the implementation of GHRM practices and organizational sustainability. These studies were conducted in specific national contexts (Malaysia, Ghana, United Arab Emirates) and sectoral contexts (e.g., public sector organizations). Their weakness was a one-dimensional approach to measuring GHRM readiness and a lack of attention to the individual antecedents of the formation of this readiness in business practice.

Therefore, this indicates an important research gap in the development of various methods of measuring employee readiness for GHRM as well as in identifying and assessing the antecedents of employee readiness for GHRM. Interestingly, even N.T. Pham, H.T. Hoang, and Q.P.T. Phan [18], in making 16 recommendations for future promising research directions on GHRM, do not refer in any way to the perspective of assessing employees’ readiness to implement the concept. This demonstrates a significant conceptual neglect of this sphere of empirical analysis.

Taking this into account, the aim of the paper is to identify and assess the formation of employees’ readiness to implement the GHRM concept according to two research approaches: an instrumental and change-based approach, as well as to demonstrate the influence of selected individual antecedents on the formation of this readiness in business practice. Empirical research conducted on a sample of 214 employees and managers from Poland was used to realize the aim of the study. The respondents were mainly young people, representatives of Generation Z, who will shape the labor market in the coming years. They mainly represented large economic organizations operating on the international market. They were prepared to take part in the survey, which resulted in more valuable and reliable results.

This paper is organized as follows. In the first part, a literature review is presented. Based on this, five general hypotheses and 12 specific hypotheses are formulated and summarized in a research model. In the research model, based on the literature review, we assumed the existence of three specific complementary models for measuring employees’ readiness to use GHRM: an instrumental model, organizational change model, and ADKAR^®-based model. In the theoretical part, based on the literature review, we further consider the theoretical link among the main concepts in the study: (1) employee readiness for GHRM, (2) personal environmental norms, (3) new environmental paradigm, (4) organizational citizenship behavior toward the environment, and (5) individual readiness for change.

The following sections present the research methodology and discuss the principles of measurement and interpretation of variables and measures used in the empirical research. The results of the research are then presented, directing them towards the verification of the research hypotheses. In the final part of the article, the results obtained are confronted with the existing literature in a scientific discussion. In addition, attention is drawn to the limitations of the conducted research and promising directions for further research work within the framework of the addressed issues are formulated.

The research results are particularly useful for companies planning to implement GHRM practices to improve environmental performance. They will also be useful for increasing the effectiveness of using current GHRM practices. The implications of the study also include enriching the theory of green human resource management by formulating proposals for various methods of measuring employee readiness for GHRM and identifying individual antecedents of this readiness in business practice.

2. Literature Review and Hypotheses Development

2.1. Green Human Resources Management Concept Review

The green human resources management concept provides a response to growing ecological and social problems of the modern world and business. Based on a review of 314 research papers, J. Herrera and C. de las Heras-Rosas [19] conclude that GHRM has been a new and far-reaching stream in management sciences since 2013, being thematically related with the field of sustainability and green economy. J. Macke and D. Genari [10] indicate that GHRM development is directly linked to sustainable human resource management (SHRM), which integrates the concept of sustainable development with HR management. As a result, GHRM is becoming a component of organizational sustainability, taking into account the environmental context as a basis for human resource management decisions.

V.N. Amrutha and S.N. Geetha [20] analyzed nine definitions of green human resource management from 2013 to 2019. In the early definitions of GHRM, the link between human resource management and certain aspects of environmental management, such as the transformation of normal employees into green employees so as to achieve the environmental goals of the organization and to make a significant contribution to environmental sustainability, reinforce environmentally sustainable practices, and increase employees’ commitment on the issues of environmental sustainability, equips organizations with environmentally conscious, committed, and competent employees, as well as empowers employees to engage in environmental activities. In contrast, more recent definitions show a clear shift in viewing the GHRM concept through the lens of specific green human resource management practices, which are considered as part of an organization’s HR process, e.g., green hiring, training, and involvement, as well as green performance management and compensation. A more in-depth presentation of this approach will be given later in the article.

A very detailed review of the literature on the current achievements in the field of research on the GHRM concept was conducted by H. Xie and T. C. Lau [21]. Based on a review of 141 articles published in 12 leading scientific journals between 2013 an d 2022, they identified specific antecedents and outcomes of applying the GHRM concept in economic practice. Antecedents are considered at three levels and include (1) organizational-level factors (e.g., green culture, green strategic goals), (2) managerial-level factors (e.g., leadership style, management commitment), and (3) employee-level factors (e.g., green knowledge, environmental concern). Outcomes, on the other hand, are considered at two basic levels and include (1) organizational-level effects (e.g., environmental performance, employer branding) and (2) employee-level effects (e.g., green commitment, green creativity). The relationships within the conceptual framework thus defined are simultaneously moderated and mediated by specific variables. Moderators can include, among others, environmental dynamic capabilities or goal commitment. The impact of GHRM on outcomes, on the other hand, is mediated by, among other things, proactive environmental management maturity or green experience.

Also S. Ren, G. Tang, and S.E. Jackson [22], based on a literature review, propose an interesting GHRM conceptual framework. In their framework, they pay significant attention to the measurement scales used, which are dominated by an approach based on specific organizational practices that form the organization of the GHRM system. Their organizing framework for green human resource management research is theoretical in nature and assumes the influence of both the external and internal environment on the GHRM system. Within the external environment, they identify three types of factors influencing the development of GHRM: (1) factors of pressure, (2) factors of guidance, and (3) factors of awareness. Within the internal environment, they consider certain antecedents (e.g., strategy, culture, technology, environmental management knowledge), moderators (e.g., organization size, industry, resources, job characteristics), and mediators (e.g., opportunities for green behavior, knowledge sharing, motivation). They also extensively consider the sphere of GHRM outcomes identifying (1) green-specific outcomes (e.g., environmental performance, green management, green citizenship behavior) as well as (2) general outcomes (e.g., financial performance, innovation, job performance).

The diversity of measurement scales and the effects of applying the GHRM concept is also pointed out by S. Faisal [23]. On the basis of a review of the literature, he presents thirteen scaled synthetic measurement scales ranging from six to fifty-two GHRM practices with an appropriate level of internal reliability. His review of empirical articles concurrently confirms the effectiveness of the GHRM concept in reducing the negative environmental effects of industry, improving organizational performance and employee wellbeing. Also, many other empirical studies confirm the significant and positive impact of GHRM on the environmental performance of modern organizations [24,25,26,27,28,29,30].

Thus, these literature reviews point to a rich conceptual and applied universe of green human resource management concepts. On the basis of the review considerations [31,32,33,34], suggestions for further directions of promising research are formulated at the same time. These mainly concern the following: (1) in-depth research into the antecedents, moderators, and mediators of the impact of GHRM on environmental performance at different levels, (2) the need to study GHRM in different contexts (e.g., country, industry, economic sector), and (3) the use of qualitative methods, mixed-methods, triangulations, and case studies in GHRM research.

The recommendations formulated therefore focus primarily on methodological issues and in-depth empirical analyses conducted from the perspective of specific levels of organization. A weakness of the research to date, as well as of the recommendations for further research work, however, is the paucity of attention paid to the issue of readiness to implement the concept in business practice. One of its important dimensions is the readiness of employees to implement GHRM in their workplaces. This readiness is considered in the stream of change management theory in terms of cognitive beliefs and positive emotions [35] as well as positive attitudes and intentions towards change [36]. In general, readiness for change, so understood, significantly and positively influences the implementation of organizational change [37,38]. Employees’ readiness for GHRM may therefore also have important implications for the effectiveness of the implementation of the concept into business practice, which, however, has not been the focus of previous research.

Based on green human resource management and change management theory, employee readiness for GHRM can be considered from two perspectives. The first is to assess the readiness of employees to apply specific GHRM practices in the organization and in their workplace. Since these practices constitute a bundle of tools/instruments of GHRM implementation into business practice [39,40], this viewpoint can be referred to as an instrumental approach. The second viewpoint treats the implementation of the GHRM system as a broader program of change in the organization. In this case, since employee readiness is based directly on change management theory [41], this viewpoint can be referred to as a change-based approach.

2.2. Employee Readiness for GHRM—Instrumental Approach

Human resource management occurs in modern organizations in the form of more or less structured and planned activities, creating specific HR processes. The dimensions of human resource management include the following:

–

the institutional dimension (entities participating in the implementation of the personnel function).

–

functional dimension (types of activities performed, arranged in specific phases or processes).

–

instrumental dimension (methods, techniques, and practices of implementing the personnel function).

The implementation of GHRM in business practice is directly related to the application of particular practices at specific HR process stages [42]. GHRM practices are instrumental for building ecological awareness and increasing employee involvement in ecological activities.

Several typical categories of GHRM instruments, which are most often described in the literature, are discussed in detail below, listed in

Table 1. GHRM instruments.

Author(s)	GHRM Instruments with Number of GHRM Instruments in Each Category
G. Mandip (2012) [43]	Recruitment (7), Performance Management System (7), Training and Development (14), Employment Relations (20), Pay and Reward (13), Exit (5). Total: 66.
D.W.S. Renwick, T. Redman, S. Maguire, 2013 [2]	Attracting/Selecting (5), Training and Development (8), Performance Management/Appraisal (5), Pay and Reward Systems (9), Employee Involvement (1), Empowerment and Engagement (3), Supportive Climate/Culture (1), Union Role in Employee Involvement and Environmental Management (3). Total: 35.
H. H. D. N. P. Opatha, A. A. Arulrajah [44]	Job analysis (2), Recruitment (2), Selection (2), Induction (2), Training (2), Performance Evaluation (2), Rewards Management (2), Discipline Management (2). Total: 16.
L.D. Zibarras, F. Coan, 2015 [45]	Employee Life Cycle (4), Rewards (4), Education and Training (3), Employee Empowerment (2), Manager Involvement (4). Total: 17.
H. Gholami, G. Rezaei, M.Z.M. Saman, M, S. Sharif, N. Zakuan, 2016 [46]	Performance Management (4), Player Involvement and Empowerment (3), Culture and Supportive Climate (3), Pay and Reward Systems (4), Attracting and Selecting (4), Training and Development (4), Unions’ Role in Player Involvement and Environmental Management (2). Total: 24.
H.A. Masri, A.A.M. Jaaron (2017) [47]	Green Recruitment and Selection (5), Green Training and Development (5), Green Performance Management and Appraisal (5), Green Reward and Compensation (3), Green Employee Empowerment and Participation (5), Green Management of Organizational Culture (5). Total: 28.
A. Longoni, D. Luzzini, M. Guerci, 2018 [48]	Green Hiring (2), Green Training and Involvement (4), Green Performance Management and Compensation (5). Total: 11.
B. B. Saeed, B. Afsar, S. Hafeez, I. Khan, M. Tahir, M.A. Afridi, 2019 [49]	Green Recruitment and Selection (9), Green Performance Management and Appraisal (9), Green Training and Development (12), Green Reward and Compensation (13), Green Empowerment (6). Total: 49.
S.K. Mousa, M. Othman, 2020 [50]	Green Hiring (6), Green Training and Involvement (8), Green Performance Management and Compensation (8). Total: 22.
T. Jamal, M. Zahid, J.M. Martins, M.N. Mata, H.U. Rahman, P.N. Mata, 2021 [51]	Green Involvement (6), Green Recruitment and Selection (3), Green Training (3), Green Pay and Reward (3). Total: 15.
F.H.H. Chen, Y.T. Tsai, WA Oen, 2022 [52]	Green Recruitment and Selective Hiring (3), Green Development and Training (4), Green Performance Evaluation (3), Green Pay and Reward (3), Green Empowerment (3), Teamwork (3). Total: 19.
N. Shah, B.A. Soomro, 2023 [53]	Green Recruitment and Selection (4), Green Training and Development (4), Green Performance Management (4), Green Compensation and Reward (4), Green Employee Involvement (5), Task-related Green Behavior (3), Voluntary Green Behavior (3), Green Innovation (6). Total: 33.

.

• Green Recruitment and Selection Instruments

Issues related to the green environment must be integrated into the recruitment process. This involves monitoring long-term competency requirements for the company, informing new employees about the policy and commitments in the field of sustainable development [54]. Employing employees with green values and high green awareness, for whom ecological issues are important, and the selection of candidates with experience in implementing ecological projects, emphasizing the company’s green image, are important [2,23,55]. Through the use of green recruitment, it is easier for organizations to attract more talented employees who have knowledge of the environment and sustainable development [39]. The company’s commitment to environmental protection and to informing employees about it, e.g., on the company’s website, allows it to stand out and identify those candidates who have green competences and green values [56,57]. The authors classify them in the following way:

–

Green Recruitment [43,55,58,59]

–

Green Recruitment and Selection [23,47,49,51,54,60,61,62,63]

–

Green Selection [44,59,64].

• Green Training and Development Instruments

This is a practice aimed at increasing environment efficiency through awareness training and the development of green skills [57,65,66]. The purpose of this training course is to teach employees to detect ecological problems and to decide and take appropriate actions to increase the efficiency of the environment. These trainings cover both the managerial staff, who are responsible for setting directions for the company’s operations at all levels of management, and other employees [65]. Education for environmental activities is a necessary element to implement and consolidate new patterns of functioning.

The authors classify them in the following way:

–

Green Training and Development [2,23,43,46,49,52,54,58,59,60,62,63,67,68]

–

Green Training [20,51,55,62,64].

• Green Performance Management

The use of performance management in green HR presents the challenges of how to measure environmental performance standards and metrics in performance management at all levels of departments and obtain actionable data on managers’ environmental performance. Performance management systems can link performance ratings to job descriptions that list specific green goals and objectives [54]. Sustainable Development Goals are included in the employee assessment, which shows that the company is committed to sustainability issues. Ecological criteria are included in the employee performance review [2]. The employees are informed about their contribution to the company’s achievements in the area of ecological efficiency [23]. Green performance management also aims to promote green behavior among employees and encourage them to submit additional initiatives for the environment.

• Green Pay and Reward

Green rewards management (Compensation: Pay and Reward System) is another key instrument of green HRM [2,20,23,43,45,46,47,49,51,52,54,58,59,60,61,63,64,67]. The green behavior of employees is rewarded, with the assumption that it will have a positive impact on their environmental performance (this will be one of the motivators). Both wage motivators (e.g., bonuses, salary increase, cash prizes, and incentives) and non-financial rewards (e.g., praise, other awards) are used here [20,54,57,67,69].

Corporate Culture and Green Culture Instruments (Supportive Climate/Culture; Green Management of Organizational Culture) is also an important instrument of green HRM [2,23,46,47,54,68,70,71]. The company’s organizational culture is an important factor in the implementation of GHRM practices (e.g., [72,73]). T. T. Luu [74] and R. C. Liden et al. [75] distinguished a serving culture, i.e., culture and behaviors facilitate help and support in mutual activities and the application of GHRM practices. Another key factor is information culture [76]. The success of the GHRM implementation depends on the efficiency of the IT systems in which the information is made available as the basis for decision-making and building trust in the company’s operations. A green culture means having green values and people who recognize and evaluate green environmental values. Green values are the deepest values in the hierarchy of a green culture; this is the goal that a green culture strives for, as well as the fundamental sign that distinguishes it from other cultures, which consists of the basic link in the structure of green culture [77].

Green Job Involvement (Employee Involvement and Participation/Green Employee Empowerment and Participation) is another instrument of green HRM [2,20,23,45,46,47,49,51,52,54,58,61,62,63,78]. According to research by S. Tariq et al. [79], empowerment provides a way to encourage employees, strengthen their actions and position, and develop green awareness to engage them and make them feel responsible for tasks in the field of green management. Key activities include delegating rights, providing more freedom in terms of decision making, building green leadership, and motivating and rewarding green initiatives [80,81]. Research by Y. Zhang et al. [57] also indicates that management’s engagement significantly and favorably impacts employees’ engagement, which translates into the company’s EP.

S. Faisal [23] identified GHRM instruments in a similar way in his publication. The GHRM instruments mentioned by the author are as follows: green job design and analysis, green recruitment and selection, green training and development, green performance management, green pay and rewards, green commitment to work, and the green management of organizational culture.

The following GHRM instruments are also mentioned in the literature: green human resource planning [55] green job design and analysis [23,44,59,82]; union role in employee involvement and environmental management [2,46]; green employee appraisal/performance management and appraisal [2,20,47,49,68]; green exit [43]; green teamwork [52,58]; green employee discipline management [59]; green orientation [64]; green counselling [64]; green welfare [64]; green health and safety [20]; green employee discipline [20]; green compensation management [62]; task-related green behavior [63]; voluntary green behavior [63]; and green innovation [63].

2.3. Employee Readiness for GHRM—Change-Based Approach

Implementing HRM practices and GHRM readiness can be also considered in the context of implementing organizational change in a company. In this approach, GHRM can be considered as a comprehensive change management concept/theory that needs to be implemented and managed in business practice.

Organizational change theory is most often considered from the perspective of four approaches: systems theory, organizational development, complexity theory, and social world theory [83]. Organizational change theory is relevant from the perspective of organizational change readiness at the organizational, team, and individual levels.

According to classical theory, organizational change itself includes all the transformations taking place in the different areas of the organization: systems, processes, and technology, as well as in organizational culture and communication at individual, team, and organization-wide levels. These transformations are carried out under the influence of both internal and external factors. Organizational change is carried out in order to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the organization [84].

B.J. Weiner et al. [85] therefore define the organizational readiness for change factor as the shared determination of the members of an organization to implement change (commitment to change) and the shared belief in their collective ability to do so (self-efficacy); these authors conceptually developed management science theory and focused on the organizational level [86]. According to J. Billsten et al. [87], change readiness refers to the beliefs of organizational members about the importance of organizational change, their level of motivation, and their possessed skills and adaptability in the face of a dynamically changing environment.

Managing change in an organization is now an on-going process, taking place at both strategic and operational levels [88], and managing the change process is important to the effectiveness of achieving business and environmental outcomes for organizations. To succeed in an environment of rapid and continuous change, organizations need to develop their change management capabilities [89].

Change management, therefore, at the organizational level, is the use of a structured process and set of tools to guide people through change to achieve a desired organizational or environmental outcome.

There is an extensive body of literature from several disciplines on change management on the grounds of change management theory. One of the earliest and dominant perspectives within “planned, strategic approaches” to organizational change is that of K. Lewin, who argues that change involves a three-stage process: (1) unfreezing the organization’s current behavior, (2) transitioning to a new behavior, (3) re-freezing the new behavior (the so-called classical model of change theory).

This model of change, developed by Lewin, was a simplified view of the change process. It was developed in the 1920s and fully articulated in Lewin’s 1951 book, The Origins of Lewin’s Three-Step Model of Change [90]. This model was the dominant model for many years [91]. Since its formulation, the theory has been revised and adapted to meet current needs, and the stages have been broken down into more precise steps. For example, R. J. Bullock and D. Batten [92] developed another four-step model by defining the following stages: (1) exploration (of the needs for change), (2) planning (preparation of the change), (3) action (actual implementation of the planned changes), and (4) integration (consolidation of the changes made). The two popular models briefly presented above referred to the change itself and the way it was implemented at a general level. However, when considering change management, it is also necessary to take into account the internal and external conditions for implementing changes at the individual level, and therefore the so-called human factor and human readiness for change [93]. The level of readiness may vary depending on what employees perceive as the balance between the costs and benefits of maintaining a specific behavior and the costs and benefits of carrying out and implementing the change.

In addition to models of the change process, which have also been developed by other researchers, e.g., [94] and J. Little [95] (the author of lean management approac, according to change management theory, the literature also lists the following key factors that determine the successful course of change at the organizational, team, or individual level [96,97]. They include the following: (1) a clear definition of the desired future state or result that the change is to achieve, (2) the vision and goal of the change, (3) a thorough analysis of people and entities involved in the change process, and groups/teams or organizations that will be affected by the change, (4) understanding their needs, interests, concerns, and level of influence—this is crucial for effective change management in the organization [98,99], (5) the role of leadership and management support in the change implementation process, (6) organizational culture, including effective communication within the organization and during change, (7) employee empowerment and involvement, (8) readiness for change at the individual and organizational level, (9) organizational citizenship behavior toward the environment (OCBE), (10) training systems and employee development, (11) management of resistance to change, (12) emotional and psychological support during the implementation of changes, as well as (13) celebrating the achievement of change goals, milestones, etc., anchoring the change in the organization [94].

The theory of organizational change management provides a certain framework and gives general strategies for change management; it should be supplemented with both a comprehensive approach, taking into account, among other things, the holistic cultural dimension of the organization, as well as an individual and flexible approach, taking into account the individual employee dimension of each change.

In turn, one of the popular models and effective tools for introducing changes at the individual and employee level is the well-known ADKAR^® model, which indicates the necessary stages of introducing change at the individual level. It defines five stages of introducing change: (1) awareness (the existence of awareness of the need for change at the individual level; individuals must be given enough information about what needs to change and the reason behind the change), (2) desire (the desire for change, to participate and support in the change, individual readiness for change), (3) knowledge (necessary knowledge about change, what to do during and after the change), (4) ability (ability to actually experience a change, to realize or implement the change as required, to implement required skills), and (5) reinforcement (to ensure the results of a change continue, sustaining the change) [100]. This model was developed by researcher and entrepreneur J. Hiatt [100] in 1996 and first published in The Perfect Change in 1999. J. Hiatt [100] explained that the process of preparing for change is sequential, that change begins with each person’s current level of awareness [101], and that none of the five steps can be avoided [100]. When this model is applied to organizational change, it will allow managers to focus their efforts on actions that will enhance individual change and therefore achieve organizational targets, achieving organizational success [102]. The ADKAR^® model is treated in the literature as a tool for measuring the level of change acceptance and its effective implementation in the organization.

Both instrumental and change-based approaches can be treated as complementary approaches to perceiving and interpreting employees’ readiness to implement the GHRM concept into business practice. They can also constitute a valuable basis for operationalizing and measuring employee readiness for GHRM. An example of the operationalization of the concept resulting from the theory of change in the literature is the proposal of an approach to readiness for GHRM in four dimensions: (1) intentional readiness for change is about the effort and energy that organizational members are willing to invest in the change process, (2) cognitive readiness for change involves measuring the beliefs and thoughts organizational members hold about the outcomes of change, (3) emotional readiness for change captures the feelings about a specific change project being introduced, [103], and (4) collaboration for change [104], which refers to the willingness of employees to work with others or share information/knowledge, implying that employees understand what functions eco-changes can provide and their belief that the company will implement them successfully.

This readiness is considered in the field of change management theory in terms of cognitive beliefs and positive emotions [35] as well as positive attitudes and intentions towards change [36].

The substantive similarity of both presented approaches aimed at measuring the readiness of employees to implement the GHRM concept in organizations leads to the formulation of hypothesis H1:

H1: 

Measuring readiness for GHRM practices according to individual approaches (readiness for GHRM instruments, readiness for the GHRM organizational change model and readiness for the GHRM ADKAR^®-based model) are significantly, positively, and very strongly correlated with each other.

2.4. Individual Antecedents of Employee Readiness for GHRM

Individual antecedents of employee readiness for GHRM were identified based on the literature review and include the following: personal environmental norms, the new environmental paradigm (NEP), organizational citizenship behavior toward the environment (OCBE), and individual readiness for change.

Personal environmental norms are beliefs about the environment and responsibilities to act in a certain way concerning the environment [105]. In the study by R. Doran and S. Larsen [106], the authors present the idea that the choice of an ecological travel option may depend on external social norms (i.e., command), and perhaps even more so, on a sense of moral obligation to choose such options (i.e., personal standards). The importance of personal norms as an exploratory factor variable was demonstrated by stating that personal norms showed the strongest association with behavioral intentions and mediated the association between social injunctions, behavioral norms, and intentions [106]. Further research has shown that green behavior at home exhibited by employees may have influenced their performance at work. This exploratory study intended to test a model to determine the moderating role of an employee’s green lifestyle to the impact of the implementation of GHRM practices on job performance in the workplace. The results supported the model and showed that green behavior at home exhibited by employees may have influenced their performance at work [107]. Personal environmental norms are a strong predictor of environmentally conscious behavior (ECB) [108].

It is important to focus on personal environmental norms as well, because they play a stronger role in environmentally conscious behavior engagement than climate change beliefs and strengthen climate change beliefs [109].

A study conducted by Perera, Kalantari, and Johnson [109] showed the strong positive relationships between personal environmental norms, climate change beliefs, and environmentally conscious behavior. The key findings of this study are as follows: (1) personal environmental norms positively affect environmentally conscious behavior, (2) personal environmental norms and climate change beliefs are positively related, (3) environmental identity and environmentally conscious behavior are positively related, and (4) climate change beliefs play a stronger role than environmental identity in environmentally conscious behavior.

Research in this area has often argued that personal norms and feelings of moral obligation are more likely to influence behavior and researchers attribute to norms a dynamic capacity to motivate behavior [110]. The synthesis of the literature review and the results of secondary research allowed the authors to formulate the following research hypotheses:

H2: 

Personal environmental norms significantly and positively impact employee readiness for GHRM.

H2a: 

Personal environmental norms significantly and positively impact readiness for GHRM instruments.

H2b: 

Personal environmental norms significantly and positively impact readiness for GHRM according to the organizational change model.

H2c: 

Personal environmental norms significantly and positively impact readiness for GHRM according to the ADKAR^®-based model.

The new environmental paradigm (NEP) scale, published in The Journal of Environmental Education by R. E. Dunlap and K. D. Van Liere [111]), has become the most widely used measure of environmental concern in the world and has been employed in hundreds of studies in dozens of nations. The NEP scale is viewed in various ways by different researchers who treat it as a measure of environmental concern, environmental values, and environmental attitudes, among other things. However, it is increasingly treated as a measure of environmental beliefs, which the creators of the NEP scale believe is the most accurate interpretation. In their opinion, the NEP scale measures the degree to which respondents view the world ecologically [112]. C. J. Chou [113] explained that to be precise, personal environmental beliefs regarding an “ecological worldview” (e.g., NEP) are influenced by personal values, and the individually held NEP view is oriented towards how one considers “adverse consequences” or the “perceived ability to reduce threat”, which then triggers personal norms. Finally, personal norms determine how people act in terms of various types of environmental behavior.

In this paper, we use a revised NEP scale, which was designed and used by Dunlap et al. [114], to improve upon the original one in several respects: (1) it taps a wider range of facets of an ecological worldview, (2) it offers a balanced set of pro- and anti-NEP items, and (3) it avoids outmoded terminology. The new scale, termed the new ecological paradigm scale, consists of 15 items [114]. Based on the synthesis of the literature review, we propose the following hypotheses:

H3: 

Following the new environmental paradigm significantly and positively impacts employee readiness for GHRM.

H3a: 

Following the new environmental paradigm significantly and positively impacts readiness for GHRM instruments.

H3b: 

Following the new environmental paradigm significantly and positively impacts readiness for GHRM according to the organizational change model.

H3c: 

Following the new environmental paradigm significantly and positively impacts readiness for GHRM according to the ADKAR^®-based model.

Among many so-called human factors, the literature suggests that organizational citizenship behavior toward the environment (OCBE) is an important antecedent for understanding readiness for GHRM practices [115].

Organizational citizenship behavior towards the environment (OCBE) is defined in the literature as unpaid, voluntary, and informal actions taken by employees that are not followed by rewards and are aimed at improving the environment [116]. It is the kind of action that can be concerned with making sustainable pro-environmental changes at the individual and organizational level. An example of OCBE is when employees suggest initiatives to minimize resource and energy consumption or inspire colleagues to do their work in a more environmentally friendly way [115]. According to O. Boiral et al. [117], there are three dimensions of OCBE: (1) eco-initiatives are voluntary efforts to enhance environmental efficiency and performance, (2) eco-civic involvement is a person’s voluntary conduct to participate in events coordinated by pro-environmental firms, and (3) eco-helping is the voluntary action of others to be aware of the environment [118].

As a mediator at the organizational level, OCBE is a construct in the research of S. Ren et al. [22] denoting the specific individual and pro-social behavior of employees in organizations beyond their assigned tasks, resulting from their own initiatives and which are not formally regulated or gratified by organizations [119]. The study of N. Anwar et al. [120] used OCBE as a mediator between GHRM and environmental performance, and considered whether it is possible that OCBE is a mediator for readiness to GHRM. This paper uses the scales proposed by D. Bouckenooghe et al. [103] and J.Y. Lai at al. [104], consisting of 12 items, to assess the impact of OCBE on readiness for GHRM. Based on the synthesis of the literature review and results of mentioned previous studies, we propose the following hypotheses:

H4: 

Organizational citizenship behavior toward the environment significantly and positively impacts employee readiness for GHRM.

H4a: 

Organizational citizenship behavior toward the environment significantly and positively impacts readiness for GHRM instruments.

H4b: 

Organizational citizenship behavior toward the environment significantly and positively impacts readiness for GHRM according to the organizational change model.

H4c: 

Organizational citizenship behavior toward the environment significantly and positively impacts readiness for GHRM according to the ADKAR^®-based model.

Individual readiness for change (IRC) may be another important antecedent of employee readiness for GHRM [80]. Researchers R. A. Jones et al. [121] established the concept of individual readiness for change (IRC), which is a certain viewpoint, attitude, and awareness of employees about the necessity of organizational change (i.e., acceptance of change, e.g., pro-environmental change). They include employees’ individual beliefs about necessary change that benefit both employees and the organization. This construct has been studied by many researchers in different contexts and studies. However, we are interested in it as an antecedent of GHRM readiness.

The IRC factor was considered in the research of S. Roscoe et al. [80] together with environmental awareness, which develops in companies using GHRM practices and subsequently translates the green attitudes and behaviors of employees [57,80,122], indicating a positive impact on GHRM. The question is whether it also positively influences readiness to implement GHRM practices. It has been studied that when employees show high levels of readiness for change, they will be more likely to change their behavior to support the change initiatives. The successful implementation of organizational change and performance depends on readiness to embrace change [121,123], i.e., a certain individual attitude. Similarly, GHRM readiness in the context of change theory appears to be a particular state of readiness for change in general and may lead to successful change implementation outcomes and related to GHRM practices. In this study, a shortened, unified scale was used based on the scales proposed by M. Vacola [93]; P.C. Stern [124]; D.T. Holt et al. [125] consisting of six items. The synthesis of the literature review leads us to the following hypotheses:

H5: 

Individual readiness for change significantly and positively impacts employee readiness for GHRM.

H5a: 

Individual readiness for change significantly and positively impacts readiness for GHRM instruments.

H5b: 

Individual readiness for change significantly and positively impacts readiness for GHRM according to the organizational change model.

H5c: 

Individual readiness for change significantly and positively impacts readiness for GHRM according to the ADKAR^®-based model.

2.5. Research Model

The synthesis of the literature review presented above and the research hypotheses determined on this basis led to the formulation of a research model, which constitutes the basis for further empirical work. The research model is presented in Figure 1.

3. Research Methodology

A survey conducted among 214 representatives of economic practice from Poland was devoted to achieving the aim of the paper and verifying the research hypotheses. The study was primarily addressed to representatives of the Z Generation, i.e., people born between 1995 and 2010 [126]. The average age of the respondents was 24.7 ± 5.18 years, with 88% of respondents representing the Z Generation, and the maximum age of the respondents was 47 years (only 3% of respondents were over 40 years old). Therefore, mainly young people were invited to participate in the study. This was decided deliberately, guided by the following premises:

–

There will be a significant impact of Generation Z on the shape of the labor market in the coming years [127];

–

There are significant challenges faced by organizations in connection with the employment of Generation Z representatives [128];

–

There will be a significant influence of Generation Z representatives on the organizational culture and the organization’s HR processes in the coming years [129].

Participants were selected using convenience sampling. Participants from part-time, postgraduate, or specialist training courses in green human resource management were invited to take part in the study. Convenience sampling is a non-probability and non-representative sampling technique [130]; however, its use allowed us to reach those who were genuinely interested in the issues addressed and who were prepared to respond substantively regarding green human resource management. The convenience of sampling, in this case, was related to the respondent’s attendance at relevant GHRM courses, which ensured that we had access to competent respondents with the necessary knowledge to provide reliable and objective answers in our research.

The Computerized Self-Administered Questionnaire [131] was used as a research technique, and the research tool was an electronic survey questionnaire made available to respondents in the Google Forms system.

Informed consent was obtained from all the respondents involved in the study. All participants were also given a full guarantee of confidentiality. This was ensured primarily by not collecting any personal data or information to link participants to specific organizations.

Fifty-four percent of respondents were women and forty-six percent of respondents were men. They were predominantly those currently studying at the university level (96%). Respondents mainly represented a background in management, economics, or finance (48%), slightly less often in technical (23%), science (7%), or general education (6%) disciplines. All of them were economically active, with half (50%) working in specialist or independent positions and 36% in direct executive positions. A total of 14% of the respondents were employed in managerial positions, with 10% in junior or middle management positions and 4% in senior/top management positions.

Respondents represented different types of organizations, with the majority (88%) working in economic organizations (enterprises) and 12% in public organizations. Almost half of the respondents (43%) represented large organizations, employing on average more than 249 people per year, entities with a stable market position, operating for more than 20 years (48%), operating mainly on an international market (54%). These are mainly service providers (60%), production (24%), and trading (16%) companies with a predominance of Polish (58%) over foreign (35%) capital. At the same time, 28% of the organizations have implemented the ISO 14001 [132] environmental management system, and 48% of the entities are planning to implement such a system within the next 3 years. The average period of employment of the respondent in a given organization was 2.5 years, while the average period of experience in the industry was 3.5 years, which made it possible to provide precise answers regarding the application of GHRM practices in the represented entities.

This study used quantitative statistical methodology [133]. The use of quantitative statistical methodology made it possible to draw conclusions about the general patterns of the formation of employee readiness for GHRM and the general relationships regarding the antecedents of this readiness in business practice. Thanks to this approach, inferences were based on normalized numerical values, making them independent of the highly subjective opinions of respondents. In addition, the use of quantitative scales allows for the replication and scalability of the approach in future research projects.

The statistical analysis of the data was conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics 26 [134]. Descriptive statistics (e.g., mean, median, mode, standard deviation) were used to analyze and interpret the collected empirical data. Relationships between variables were assessed using values and significance tests for linear correlation coefficients: r_xy Pearson (when both variables were measured on at least an interval scale) and r_s Spearman (when at least one variable was measured on an ordinal scale). The statistical techniques and tools used were adjusted each time to the purpose of the study and the type of research data collected.

For the descriptive interpretation of the strength of the linear relationship, an approach based on the proposal of J. Cohen [135] was used. It is adapted to the specificities of behavioral research and is recommended for the assessment of social opinions in management science [136]. According to this approach, the following descriptive interpretations were adopted for the post-individual levels of the strength of the linear relationship: 0.1—weak; 0.3—medium; 0.5—strong, 0.7—very strong. A multiple linear regression analysis was used to assess the impact of independent variables on dependent variables in the research model [137].

4. Variables and Measures

A synthetic measures approach was used to analyze the variables (theoretical constructs) present in the research model. Due to the social nature of the research, a synthetic measure means using a set (battery) of specific items to measure variables of a latent nature. These items are indicators representing phenomena, states of affairs, and/or events (behaviors) representative for the construct in question; they are easy to observe and their interpretation by the researcher and the respondent is relatively reliable [138]. This approach has been used successfully in many previous studies on green human resource management (e.g., [139,140,141]). Moreover, the research results show that, under most conditions typically encountered in practical applications, multi-item scales clearly outperform single items in terms of predictive validity [142].

In the measurement process, respondents assessed the manifestations of the individual theoretical constructs, which are expressed in terms of specific items that are identifiable and assessable in economic practice [143]. All measurement scales of the synthetic variables were prepared based on previous literature sources. All items are presented in Appendix A. Items were rated by respondents on a range of 1–5, where 1 indicated a very low level of trait intensity (‘definitely disagree’) and 5 indicated a very high level of trait intensity (‘definitely agree’). Some items, such as the new environmental paradigm (NEP) measurement scale in the questionnaire, had some reversed values. Before proceeding with the analyses, all values were set in the same interpretative direction.

To measure the internal consistency of scales, Cronbach’s Alpha was used, assuming its minimum acceptable value of αCr > 0.7 and maximum acceptable value of 0.95 [144,145]. The synthetic values were expressed as the arithmetic mean of the individual item scores, thus obtaining a measurement on the interval scales. Scales and interpretations of the main research variables are presented in

Table 2. Main research variables protocol.

Variable	Items	Source—Scale Adapted From	αCr	Descriptive Interpretation “Higher Value Means…”
Readiness for GHRM instruments	36	[2,43,50,53]	0.94	greater readiness for GHRM instruments
– planning instruments	4		0.79
– acquisition instruments	8		0.86
– development instruments	3		0.85
– engagement instruments	8		0.83
– motivating instruments	7		0.83
– performance instruments	3		0.80
– resignations instruments	3		0.81
Readiness for GHRM: organizational change model	12	[103,104]	0.95	greater readiness for GHRM according to organizational change model approach
– intentional readiness	3		0.90
– cognitive readiness	3		0.84
– emotional readiness	3		0.80
– collaborative readiness	3		0.91
Readiness for GHRM: ADKAR®-based model	12	[100]	0.94	greater readiness for GHRM according to ADKAR®-based model approach
– awareness + desire	3		0.81
– knowledge	3		0.83
– ability	3		0.75
– reinforcement	3		0.85
Personal environmental norms	11	[107]	0.91	higher personal environmental norms
New environmental paradigm	15	[114]	0.79	beliefs more in line with NEP
Organizational citizenship behavior toward the environment	6	[22,120]	0.92	greater organizational citizenship behavior toward the environment
Individual readiness for change	6	[93,124,125]	0.86	greater individual readiness for change in organization

Source: own work based on survey results.

.

In addition, the model included control variables covering the characteristics of the respondents and the organizational context of the research expressed by the characteristics of the companies they represented. In particular, we used industry as a control variable to capture, among other things, the potential impact of specific employment characteristics in different industries (e.g., [146,147]) on the development of employee readiness for GHRM. Most of the control variables were measured using R. Likert ordinal scales expressing the intensity of a given characteristic. In the case of gender and industry, a nominal scale was used, while the age and length of service of the respondent in the company were expressed on a ratio scale. In further analyses, industry was coded as a dummy variable [148]. Scales and descriptive interpretations of the control variables are presented in

Table 3. Control variables protocol.

Control Variables	Scale	Min–Max	Descriptive Interpretation “Higher Value Means…”
Company size	Ordinal	1–4	larger company size as measured by average annual employment
Age of the company	Ordinal	1–5	a longer period of market activity of the company
Market coverage	Ordinal	1–4	a larger range of the company’s market activity
Foreign capital	Ordinal	1–3	predominance of foreign over domestic capital in the company’s ownership structure
ISO 14001 system [132]	Ordinal	1–3	plans to implement or fully implement the ISO 14001 system [132]
Industry	Nominal	1–3	1—trading, 2—service, 3—production
Gender of respondent	Nominal	1–2	1—female, 2—male
Age of the respondent	Ratio	18–47	higher age of respondent
Educational background of the respondent	Ordinal	1–4	higher education level of the respondent
Position of the respondent	Ordinal	1–4	higher position of the respondent in the hierarchical structure of the company
Seniority of the respondent	Ratio	0–19	respondent’s longer seniority in the company

Source: own work based on survey results.

.

5. Results

In the first part of the analyses, respondents’ readiness for GHRM practices was interpreted descriptively, divided into instrumental and change-based approaches. Within the instrumental approach, respondents rated their readiness for 36 specific GHRM practices in seven areas. The results of readiness for GHRM practices in each area and the most and least preferred practices are presented in

Table 4. Assessment of respondents’ readiness for GHRM practices—instrumental approach.

Readiness for GHRM Instruments:	Mean	SD	The Most Preferred GHRM Instruments	Mean	SD	The Least Preferred GHRM Instruments	Mean	SD
development instruments	4.33	0.68	presenting new employees with good examples of environmental behavior in the company	4.43	0.75	giving preference in recruitment to candidates with experience in green activities	2.96	1.13
positive motivating instruments	3.83	0.77	developing green skills within the company	4.39	0.71	taking environmental criteria into account in the staff appraisal process	2.97	1.17
engagement instruments	3.81	0.67	promoting green attitudes among employees	4.37	0.79	including green requirements in recruitment advertisements	3.11	1.17
planning instruments	3.73	0.76	fringe benefits (green benefits)	4.31	0.87	giving preference to environmentally sensitive candidates in the recruitment process	3.12	1.17
acquisition instruments	3.64	0.71	activities to raise employees’ environmental awareness/knowledge	4.24	0.84	pay rises linked to environmental performance	3.13	1.40
resignations instruments	3.56	0.92	encouraging employees to take environmental action in their workplace	4.23	0.89	setting environmental objectives for employees	3.30	1.09
performance instruments	3.34	0.93	emphasizing the company’s green image and green values in the labor market	4.18	0.80	analyzing the labor market for the availability of candidates with green skills	3.33	1.14

Source: own work based on survey results.

.

The average score was 3.75 (75% of scale maximum), indicating a high level of respondents’ readiness for GHRM practices. At the same time, the results indicate that respondents primarily expect GHRM practices in the areas of developing, motivating, and engaging employees. To a relatively smallest extent, expectations relate to GHRM instruments in the area of performance management. In this case, we can also see the relatively greatest variation in the evaluations of the people surveyed.

Among the specific instruments, the most requested by the respondents are first and foremost instruments from the employee acquisition and development group. Respondents would like, as newly hired employees, to be able to familiarize themselves with good examples of environmental behavior in the company and with pro-environmental activities and successes. It is also important to them to emphasize the company’s green image and green values in the labor market. In terms of development, it is important to provide opportunities to learn specific environmental skills in the workplace, such as energy efficiency, waste management, resource conservation/consumption, or recycling, for example. It is also important to promote ecological attitudes among employees and activities that increase employees’ awareness and ecological knowledge, e.g., through training, newsletters, or pro-ecological meetings. Additional benefits supporting environmental protection, such as subsidizing the purchase of bicycles or monthly tickets, as well as encouraging employees to take environmental actions at their workplace, e.g., by saving energy or reducing waste, are also important for respondents.

The least preferred solutions, on the other hand, included practices in the area of staff acquisition, including the inclusion of environmental requirements in recruitment advertisements and the use of environmental preferences in the staff acquisition process. Solutions in the area of performance management, including the setting of environmental objectives for employees and the inclusion of environmental criteria in staff appraisal, were also assessed unfavorably. Analyzing the labor market for the availability of candidates with green skills and giving pay rises based on environmental performance on the job were also unpopular with respondents. At the same time, the relatively higher SD values indicate a significantly greater variation in respondents’ answers regarding the least preferred GHRM instruments.

Within the change-based approach, two change models were evaluated: (1) an organizational change model and (2) ADKAR^®-based model. The organizational change model assessed four dimensions of change readiness: intentional, cognitive, emotional, and collaborative readiness. Because of the similarity in content, the ADKAR^®-based model linked the awareness dimension to desire, creating one common dimension of awareness + desire. Additionally, the other three dimensions of the model were assessed: knowledge, ability, and reinforcement. The results of the respondents’ assessment are presented in

Table 5. Assessment of respondents’ readiness for GHRM practices—change-based approach.

Readiness for GHRM: Organizational Change Model	Mean	SD	Readiness for GHRM: ADKAR®-Based Model	Mean	SD
– intentional readiness (INT)	3.47	1.05	– awareness + desire (A + D)	3.78	0.81
– cognitive readiness (COG)	4.08	0.78	– knowledge (K)	3.91	0.83
– emotional readiness (EMO)	3.78	0.84	– ability (A)	3.64	0.86
– collaborative readiness (COL)	3.6	0.96	– reinforcement (R)	3.8	0.84

Source: own work based on survey results.

.

The results indicate that within the organizational change model, cognitive readiness, which is related to the understanding that GHRM practices will benefit the company by translating into tangible environmental outcomes and opportunities for environmental action in the workplace, scored relatively highest. Respondents also rated emotional readiness highly, which was related to good feelings about the prospects for GHRM implementation, and a willingness to align their work with the requirements of the company’s GHRM practices. To a slightly lesser extent, respondents expressed collaborative and intentional readiness. The former includes, among other things, discussion and sharing of GHRM knowledge with colleagues. The second, on the other hand, involves the direct involvement and contribution of employees in the implementation of GHRM practices in the company.

The dimension of knowledge was rated relatively highest in the ADKAR^®-based model, where the respondents’ propensity to acquire and develop knowledge about GHRM practices is of importance. The reinforcement and awareness + desire dimensions were also rated highly and at a similar level by respondents. The former expresses hope for the strategic, long-term importance of GHRM practices, guaranteeing the company’s position as a leader in the implementation of environmental solutions. The second includes an awareness of the importance of GHRM practices for modern business and expresses readiness to apply them in the company and in the workplace. On the other hand, the ability dimension, related to, among other things, investing serious financial resources to implement GHRM practices and rewarding employees involved in implementing these solutions into business practice, was rated relatively lowest.

In the next part of the study, an analysis of the relationships between all three approaches to measuring readiness for GHRM practices was conducted. The results are presented in

Table 6. Descriptive statistics and evaluation of the relationship between approaches to measuring respondents’ readiness for GHRM practices.

Approach	Mean	SD	(1) Readiness for GHRM Instruments	(2) Readiness for GHRM: Organizational Change Model
(1) Readiness for GHRM instruments	3.75	0.59	1
(2) Readiness for GHRM: organizational change model	3.73	0.81	0.81 **	1
(3) Readiness for GHRM: ADKAR®-based model	3.78	0.76	0.82 **	0.88 **

Significance test for linear correlation coefficient r_xy Pearson. ** significance at 0.01. Source: own work based on survey results.

.

All three approaches to measuring readiness for GHRM obtained very similar mean scores, differing only at the 0.05 level. Slightly greater differences were observed with regard to the standard deviation values. In this case, the most consistent responses were for the readiness for GHRM instruments.

The results indicate significant, positive, and very strong relationships between respondents’ readiness for GHRM instruments and readiness according to the organizational change and ADKAR^®-based models. This therefore positively verifies hypothesis H1, according to which measures of readiness for GHRM practices according to the different approaches (readiness for GHRM instruments, readiness for GHRM organizational change model and readiness for GHRM ADKAR^®-based model) are significantly, positively, and very strongly correlated with each other.

An analysis of the impact of individual independent variables on the development of respondents’ readiness for GHRM practices was then carried out. A linear regression analysis was used for this. In a first step, control models were analyzed, considering only the effect of the control variables on the level of GHRM readiness. The results are shown in

Table 7. Influence of control variables on the level of readiness for the GHRM.

Variables:		Regression Models:
		1a	1b	1c
Dependent Variable:		Readiness for GHRM Instruments	Readiness for GHRM: Organizational Change Model	Readiness for GHRM: ADKAR®-Based Model
Control variables:	Company size	0.03 (0.05) [0.05]	0.02 (0.07) [0.03]	0.01 (0.07) [0.02]
	Age of the company	−0.05 (0.04) [−0.12]	−0.08 (0.05) [−0.15]	−0.08 (0.05) [−0.15]
	Market coverage	−0.04 (0.03) [−0.09]	−0.06 (0.05) [−0.1]	−0.07 (0.04) [−0.13]
	Foreign capital	−0.04 (0.06) [−0.06]	0 (0.08) [0]	0 (0.07) [0]
	ISO 14001 system [132]	0.10 (0.06) [0.14]	0.12 (0.08) [0.13]	0.13 (0.08) [0.15]
	Industry-trading	0 (0.12) [0]	−0.16 (0.16) [−0.07]	−0.02 (0.15) [−0.01]
	Industry-production	0.16 (0.10) [0.12]	0.14 (0.13) [0.07]	0.24 (0.13) [0.13]
	Gender of respondent	−0.23 (0.08) [−0.2 **]	−0.39 (0.11) [−0.24 **]	−0.30 (0.10) [−0.20 **]
	Age of the respondent	0.01 (0.01) [0.09]	0.02 (0.02) [0.15]	0.02 (0.02) [0.15]
	Educational background of the respondent	0.06 (0.06) [0.07]	0.09 (0.08) [0.08]	0.04 (0.08) [0.04]
	Position of the respondent	−0.03 (0.06) [−0.04]	−0.06 (0.07) [−0.06]	−0.09 (0.07) [−0.09]
	Seniority of the respondent	−0.01 (0.02) [−0.04]	−0.03 (0.03) [−0.09]	−0.02 (0.03) [−0.07]
	Constant	3.94 (0.30)	4.01 (0.41)	4.07 (0.38)
Model statistics:	Observations	214	214	214
	R2	0.09	0.13	0.11
	R2 corrected	0.04	0.08	0.06
	F-stat	1.7	2.49 **	2.07 *

Multiple linear regression analysis. Variable excluded: Industry-service. Standard errors in parentheses, standardized coefficients in square brackets. * significance at 0.05; ** significance at 0.01. Source: own work based on survey results.

.

Only two of the three models analyzed proved to be statistically significant (model 1b and 1c). However, the effect of the control variables in explaining the variation in the proxy variables was marginal, ranging from R²(corrected) = 4–8%. The only variable with a significant effect on GHRM readiness according to the organizational change model and ADKAR^®-based model was found to be the gender of the respondents. In both cases, women rated GHRM readiness according to these models at a higher level.

In the next step, a descriptive and correlational analysis of the independent variables from the research model was conducted. The results are presented in

Table 8. Descriptive statistics and evaluation of the relationship between the independent variables in the research model.

Independent Variable	Median	Mode	SD	(1) Personal Environmental Norms	(2) New Environmental Paradigm	(3) OCBE
(1) Personal environmental norms	3.55	3.18	0.78	1
(2) New Environmental Paradigm	3.60	3.13	0.55	0.43 **	1
(3) Organizational citizenship behavior toward the environment (OCBE)	3.00	2.00	0.98	0.71 **	0.17 *	1
(4) Individual readiness for change	3.83	4.00	0.72	0.33 **	0.08	0.40 **

Significance test for linear correlation coefficient r_xy Pearson. * significance at 0.05; ** significance at 0.01. Source: own work based on survey results.

.

The results generally indicate moderate levels of the dependent variables in the sample. The exception is OCBE, where the dominant value indicates that respondents would ‘rather not’ undertake pro-environmental activities for the company beyond their primary responsibilities. On the other hand, the individual readiness for change was rated relatively highest, where the dominant value indicates that respondents are rather positive about changes in their companies and try to support their implementation.

At the same time, the results obtained indicate that a strong relationship only appears in the case of the relationship between personal environmental norms and organizational citizenship behavior towards the environment. This means that people who feel guilty about environmental negligence, try to take care of the environment in their everyday behavior, and are even prepared to accept a reduction in their standard of living in order to protect the environment are, at the same time, more committed to taking voluntary action and behavior to support their company’s environmental activities. The personal environmental norms of the respondents are at the same time positively and moderately related to the following of the new environmental paradigm and the individual level of readiness to make changes in the company. Respondents who are positive and proactive about implementing change in their companies are simultaneously, to a moderate degree, willing to undertake voluntary pro-ecological activities in the workplace beyond their primary duties. In addition, a weak significant relationship was observed between taking up such voluntary duties and following the new environmental paradigm.

In a final step, the direct effect of independent variables on employee readiness for GHRM was assessed using a multiple linear regression analysis. For this purpose, the previously presented regression models were supplemented with the independent variables resulting from the research model. The results obtained are presented in

Table 9. Empirical verification of the research model.

Variables:		Regression Models:
		2a	2b	2c
Dependent Variable		Readiness for GHRM Instruments	Readiness for GHRM: Organizational Change Model	Readiness for GHRM: ADKAR®-Based Model
Independent variables:	Personal environmental norms	0.31 (0.06) [0.41 **]	0.31 (0.09) [0.3 **]	0.3 (0.08) [0.31 **]
	New environmental paradigm	0.15 (0.07) [0.14 *]	0.29 (0.09) [0.2 **]	0.34 (0.09) [0.25 **]
	Organizational citizenship behavior toward the environment (OCBE)	0.1 (0.05) [0.17 *]	0.17 (0.07) [0.2 *]	0.15 (0.06) [0.19 *]
	Individual readiness for change (IRC)	0.05 (0.05) [0.06]	0.12 (0.07) [0.11]	0.04 (0.06) [0.04]
Control variables:	Company size	0.04 (0.04) [0.07]	0.04 (0.06) [0.06]	0.04 (0.06) [0.07]
	Age of the company	−0.02 (0.03) [−0.05]	−0.05 (0.04) [−0.08]	−0.05 (0.04) [−0.09]
	Market coverage	−0.02 (0.03) [−0.05]	−0.04 (0.04) [−0.07]	−0.05 (0.04) [−0.1]
	Foreign capital	−0.04 (0.05) [−0.07]	−0.02 (0.06) [−0.02]	−0.02 (0.06) [−0.02]
	ISO 14001 system [132]	0.05 (0.05) [0.07]	0.05 (0.06) [0.05]	0.08 (0.06) [0.09]
	Industry-trading	0.09 (0.09) [0.06]	−0.03 (0.12) [−0.01]	0.11 (0.12) [0.06]
	Industry-production	0.09 (0.08) [0.07]	0.03 (0.11) [0.02]	0.14 (0.10) [0.08]
	Gender of respondent	−0.09 (0.07) [−0.08]	−0.2 (0.09) [−0.12 *]	−0.10 (0.09) [−0.06]
	Age of the respondent	0 (0.01) [0]	0.01 (0.01) [0.06]	0.01 (0.01) [0.04]
	Educational background of the respondent	0.02 (0.05) [0.02]	0.05 (0.07) [0.04]	−0.01 (0.06) [−0.01]
	Position of the respondent	−0.01 (0.04) [−0.02]	−0.05 (0.06) [−0.05]	−0.07 (0.06) [−0.07]
	Seniority of the respondent	−0.01 (0.02) [−0.03]	−0.02 (0.02) [−0.08]	−0.01 (0.02) [−0.05]
	Constant	1.79 (0.35)	0.92 (0.47)	1.15 (0.45)
Model statistics:	Observations	214	214	214
	R2	0.45	0.46	0.45
	R2 corrected	0.41	0.42	0.40
	F-stat	10.11 **	10.68 **	9.95 **

Multiple linear regression analysis. Variable excluded: Industry-service. Standard errors in parentheses, standardized coefficients in square brackets. * significance at 0.05; ** significance at 0.01. Source: own work based on survey results.

.

All three analyzed regression models were found to be statistically significant. There was a significant increase in the explanation of variation in the dependent variables to R²(corrected) = 40–42%. The effect of personal environmental norms on the development of employee readiness for GHRM was found to be significant and positive in all three models. This means that personal environmental norms significantly and positively impact readiness for GHRM instruments, readiness for GHRM according to the organizational change model, as well as readiness for GHRM according to the ADKAR^®-based model. Hypotheses H2a, H2b, and H2c were therefore positively verified. As a result, it can be concluded that personal environmental norms significantly and positively impact employee readiness for GHRM, which positively verifies the general hypothesis H2.

Similarly, a significant and positive impact of following the new environmental paradigm was identified on the level of all three approaches to measuring employee readiness for GHRM. This means that following the new environmental paradigm significantly and positively impacts readiness for GHRM instruments, readiness for GHRM according to the organizational change model, as well as readiness for GHRM according to the ADKAR^®-based model. Hypotheses H3a, H3b, and H3c were therefore positively verified. As a result, it can be concluded that following the new environmental paradigm significantly and positively impacts employee readiness for GHRM, which positively verifies the general hypothesis H3.

In the case of organizational citizenship behavior toward the environment, a significant and positive impact of this variable on the respondents’ readiness to implement GHRM in the organization was also observed. This impact concerned all three approaches to measuring GHRM readiness: readiness for GHRM instruments, readiness for GHRM according to the organizational change model, as well as readiness for GHRM according to the ADKAR^®-based model. This means that the specific hypotheses H4a, H4b, and H4c have been positively verified. As a result, it can be concluded that organizational citizenship behavior toward the environment significantly and positively impacts employee readiness for GHRM, which positively verifies the general hypothesis H4.

Unlike the three independent variables mentioned above, no significant and positive impact of individual readiness for change on the level of readiness for GHRM was observed in any of the analyzed regression models. This means that individual readiness for change does not significantly affect the level of readiness for GHRM instruments, the level of readiness for GHRM according to the organizational change model, or the level of readiness for GHRM according to the ADKAR^®-based model. Therefore, the specific hypotheses H5a, H5b, and H5c were rejected. As a result, the general hypothesis H5 should also be rejected, and it should be stated that individual readiness for change does not have a significant and positive impact on employee readiness for GHRM.

6. Discussion

6.1. Comparative Analysis with Existing Publications

The conducted study constitutes a significant contribution to research on green human resources management (GHRM) as an important factor in the development of green innovation [149] and strengthening environmental performance in different types of organizations and countries [26,29,120,150]. It fits into the demands of searching for antecedents of the implementation of GHRM into economic practice. The need for research in this area has been called for in numerous review articles on the current achievements and development prospects of the GHRM concept (e.g., [21,22]).

The obtained results are generally consistent with those of S.K. Ooi, A. Amran, S. Goh, and M. Nejati [14], who examined the readiness for GHRM practices on a sample of 504 respondents in the Malaysian financial services industry. The average value of readiness for GHRM practices they obtained was 2.19 (73% of scale maximum) on a scale of 1–3 (whereby 1 = not important, 2 = important, and 3 = very important for GHRM practice). This means that, on average, Malaysian respondents rated their readiness for GHRM practices at a high level, which is very similar to the respondents in this study (75% of scale maximum). The majority of the Malaysian respondents were young people, aged between 20 and 30. In this study, however, not only current employees were asked about their readiness for GHRM practices, but also potential employees (“future employees”) and people from outside the organization (“Financial services industry customers”, “Government agency”), which, in our opinion, may indicate the respondent bias [151,152] in this research procedure.

It is important to note that there is significant variance in the assessment of preferences for the use of specific GHRM practices in our study. Relatively, the most expected practices are those related to development, positive motivation, and engaging employees in pro-environmental activities. On the other hand, instruments related to employee evaluation and performance management were rated relatively lowest. This is in line with the literature, which emphasizes that the development of knowledge, skills, and abilities that provide economic value to an organization is becoming increasingly important to employees and contemporary organizations [153,154]. Both C-suite executives and human resource professionals emphasize that developing the necessary skill set within the next generation of leaders is a top human capital challenge for organizations operating in a global, knowledge-based economy. Accordingly, most organizations invest in training and development programs as part of HR strategy [155]. Our survey results confirm that respondents mainly prefer GHRM instruments in the area of employee development, e.g., developing green skills in the company, and environmental awareness/knowledge-raising activities for employees. GHRM instruments in the area of employee acquisition (new employees with good examples of green behavior in the company) and employee motivation and engagement (promoting green attitudes among employees) were highly positively assessed. The lowest rated GHRM instruments include practices such as giving preference to environmentally sensitive candidates in the recruitment process, taking environmental criteria into account in the staff appraisal process, pay rises linked to environmental performance, and others. Our results show that Generation Z employees do not like to be evaluated for their environmental performance or categorized in the recruitment process according to their green skills. The literature review generally confirms employees’ reluctance to be evaluated [156].

The obtained research results are part of the trend of analyses aimed at tips and recommendations for the effective implementation of the GHRM concept into economic practice. They should be treated as complementary to the research on the readiness of organizations to implement this concept conducted by W. Zihan, Z.K.M. Makhbul, and S.S. Alam [15]. Their conceptualization and operationalization of organizational readiness for GHRM was also embedded in the theory of change management and includes (1) change commitment (including the overall commitment of the organization to changes required for green HRM and strong leadership support for GHRM initiatives in organization) and (2) change efficiency (including efficient management of the resources required for GHRM in organization and effective measurement of the impact of changes made for GHRM in organization). Interestingly, an important component assessed as part of change commitment is also the willingness of employees to adopt changes related to GHRM. An additional dimension of the organization’s readiness for GHRM is strategic alignment, which considers linking GHRM practices with our overall business strategy of organization as well as taking into account environmental sustainability objectives in the group of strategic goals of the organization.

In the above context, the results obtained in this study become an important component of a broader conceptual and application perspective on organizational readiness to implement GHRM into business practice. The study by W. Zihan, Z.K.M. Makhbul, and S.S. Alam [15] also confirms the correctness of the assumptions made in this article regarding the connection of employees’ readiness for GHRM with the theory of change management. This approach allows the implementation of the GHRM system to be treated as a broader program of strategic changes in the organization. This approach is represented by, among others, S. Zhang, Z. Wang, and X. Zhao [157], who separate the strategic dimension of the green human resources management system as a component of the proactive environmental strategy of the organization and the operational aspect of implementing specific GHRM practices, which then influence the improvement of environmental performance.

The results obtained also fit into a broader discussion on the barriers to implementing GHRM into business practice. P. Goel, S. Mehta, R. Kumar, and F. Castaño [158] draw attention to this problem, considering it in the specific context of educational institutions. They divide the GHRM system into four sub-sections: adoption strategies, policies, procedures, and rules. Based on the literature, in each of these areas, they indicate specific challenges in adopting the GHRM system into economic practice. Barriers relating to employees’ limited readiness for GHRM were identified in the strategies sub-section as “lack of commitment and adaptation among employees” [159,160], and in adoption policies as “lack of employee engagement and involvement” [161]. The subsequent empirical investigation showed that both barriers were identified as some of the key limitations to the implementation of GHRM in educational institutions.

The obtained results are also mostly consistent with previous considerations on the antecedents of green competences or pro-environmental behavior of employees. In this study, employee readiness can be understood as a specific, positive attitude/behavior towards the implementation of the GHRM concept in the organization. According to the general competencies framework [162], it can therefore be treated as one of the components of green/sustainable employee competences.

In this context, the significant and positive impact of personal environmental norms on employees’ environmentally conscious behaviors is consistent with the findings of C.R. Perera, H. Kalantari, and L.W. Johnson [109]. Based on a study with a sample of 682 respondents from the Dynata survey panel (Australian research panel company), they showed that personal environmental norms significantly and positively affect environmentally conscious behaviors. Also, in a study by J.A.N. Ansari and S. Irfan [163], personal environmental norms positively affect employee engagement as expressed, among other things, by an enthusiastic attitude towards green initiatives at work.

The results obtained are also consistent with previous research findings indicating the important role of the new environmental paradigm in the development of pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors. For example, a study by M.M. Sulphey, N.S. AlKahtani, N.A.M. Senan, and A.H.E. Adow [164]), with a sample of 453 respondents, showed that following the new environmental paradigm has a significant and positive impact on environmentally relevant behaviors and involves behaviors promoting positive environmental changes. Also, OCBE is seen as a motivational strategy in the firm to capture pro-environmental behaviors, and these behaviors are irreplaceable because of individuals’ varied ability to contribute successfully to environmental action [165]. Moreover, under these conditions, green competencies become encouraged in organizations through adequate green training, which focuses on employee sensitivity to environmental conservation and sustainable development and building OCBE in the workplace [166]. In this context, OCBE is directly linked to the development of green competencies, as indicated, among others, by the research findings of J.O. Ong and S. Riyanto [167].

The problem of the role of readiness for change in shaping pro-environmental behaviors, on the other hand, is highlighted by H. Maartensson and N.M. Loi [168]. Taking inspiration from the research of B. Xie, M.B. Brewer, B.K. Hayes, R.I. McDonald, and B.R. Newell [169], they directly link risk perception, which is an important component of individual readiness for change [170], to behavioral willingness for change. They further show that behavioral willingness for change significantly and positively influences pro-environmental behavior, interpreted, inter alia, as being motivated by a combination of self-interest and pro-social motives. This framing fits well with the understanding of readiness for GHRM in this study.

Interestingly, the direct, isolated effect of individual readiness for change on post-individual employee GHRM readiness approaches is significant and positive, which is consistent with the findings of a study by H. Maartensson and N.M. Loi [168]:

–

y_{(instrumental approach)} = 0.23x_{(ind. readiness for change)} + 2.91, F = 17.90, p < 0.01;

–

y_{(org. change model)} = 0.34x_{(ind. readiness for change)} + 2.48, F = 21.07, p < 0.01;

–

y_(ADKAR^®_{-based model)} = 0.26x_{(ind. readiness for change)} + 2.82, F = 13.79, p < 0.01.

Taken as a whole, however, the results presented in this article do not support the conclusions of the study by H. Maartensson and N.M. Loi [168]. Individual readiness for change, considered together with the other “green” antecedents, loses its importance and does not significantly affect employees’ readiness to implement GHRM in the organization.

A synthesized comparison of the results of our research with the previous studies is presented in

Table 10. Comparison of presented research results with previous studies.

Previous Studies	Comparison of Our and Previous Studies	Summary of Comparison
Ren, Tang and Jackson, 2018 [22]; Xie and Lau, 2023 [21]	Previous study demands of searching for antecedents of the implementation of GHRM into economic practice. Our research fills this gap with the individual antecedents of employee readiness for GHRM.	Gap-filling
Ooi, Goh and Nejati, 2017 [14]	Previous study examined the readiness for GHRM practices in the Malaysian financial services industry. In our study, employee readiness for GHRM was assessed at a similar level (75% of scale maximum vs. 73% of scale maximum in previous studies). However, our study proposes more approaches to measuring readiness for GHRM and analyzes the individual antecedents of this readiness.	Confirmation
Rudman, 2020 [156]	Our research indicates that Generation Z respondents are reluctant to have their environmental performance evaluated and do not want to be categorized in the recruitment process in terms of environmental skills. Previous research confirms employees’ reluctance to be evaluated.	Confirmation
Zihan, Makhbul and Alam, 2024 [15]	Previous study has focused on the readiness of organizations to implement the GHRM concept. In this context, employee readiness can be considered as a component of an organization’s broader readiness for GHRM implementation.	Complementarity
Goel, Mehta, Kumar and Castaño, 2022 [158]	Previous study has concentrated on specific challenges related to implementation of GHRM into business practice. In this context, lack of employee readiness may be considered as a barrier for GHRM implementation.	Complementarity
Guitert, Romeu, Baztán, 2021 [162]	Previous study has concentrated on general competencies framework. In this context, employee readiness as positive attitude/behavior towards the implementation of the GHRM concept can be considered as a specific component of green/sustainable employee competences.	Complementarity
Perera, Kalantari and Johnson, 2022 [109]; Ansari and Irfan, 2023 [163]	Previous studies have found significant and positive impact of personal environmental norms on employees’ environmentally conscious behaviors and attitudes towards green initiatives at work. Our research confirms the significant and positive impact of personal environmental norms on the formation of employee readiness for GHRM.	Confirmation in different context
Sulphey, AlKahtani, Senan and Adow, 2023 [164]	Previous study indicated important role of the new environmental paradigm in promoting positive environmental changes. Our research confirms following the new environmental paradigm significantly and positively impacts employee readiness for GHRM.	Confirmation in different context
Roca-Puig, 2019 [165]	Previous study captured OCBE as a motivational strategy for pro-environmental behaviors. In our research OCBE has become one of the important individual antecedents of employee readiness for GHRM.	Confirmation in different context
Maartensson and Loi, 2022 [168]	Previous study linked individual readiness for change to behavioral willingness for change. In our study individual readiness for change considered together with the other “green” antecedents loses its importance and does not significantly affect employees’ readiness to GHRM.	Contradiction

Source: own work based on cited publications and own research results.

.

6.2. Theoretical Implications of the Study

In the theoretical aspect, the article enriches the current of green human resource management with a new line of research related to organizational readiness for GHRM implementation. In this context, individual employee readiness can be viewed as a component (dimension) of organizational readiness for GHRM. The paper provides a broad review of the literature on a variety of GHRM practices and offers a systemic approach to an instrumental understanding of this management concept. An important contribution to the green human resource management trend is also the formulation of a novel proposal to measure employee readiness for GHRM according to three approaches: (1) readiness for GHRM instruments, (2) readiness for GHRM according to the organizational change model, and (3) readiness for GHRM according to the ADKAR^®-based model. At the same time, the results of the study confirmed the high usefulness of all these approaches in examining the individual readiness of employees for GHRM.

6.3. Practical Implications of the Study

The findings provide important insights into the universe of challenges facing organizations that are implementing or planning to implement the GHRM concept into business practice. The results provide a number of valuable lessons for organizations implementing or planning to implement GHRM practices. The measurements taken indicate which practices (and groups of practices) are most and least supported by employees. The results obtained can be used to improve human resource management practices and promote sustainability in organizations. They will be useful for companies that plan to implement GHRM practices in the future. Among other things, they will make it possible to plan the order in which to implement practices, starting with those that are most desired by employees. Such companies will also be able to avoid or properly prepare employees to implement less popular practices. In this way, they will reduce resistance to possible changes related to the implementation of the concept under discussion. Companies with GHRM solutions already in place can improve their experiences by implementing new practices that are widely accepted by employees.

With the results, organizations will also be able to adjust their workforce planning and acquisition programs accordingly, in order to welcome people into the organization who are positive about implementing GHRM. The operationalizations of the variables proposed in the article can be used in recruitment procedures by providing a reliable level of measurement of GHRM readiness. The results of the research can also be used when introducing change programs in organizations planning to implement GHRM practices in the near future. When implementing the GHRM concept, the first thing to do is to analyze personal environmental norms, as well as to assess previous organizational citizenship behaviors towards the environment in the workplace or previous employment. The validated new environmental paradigm (NEP) scale can also be used to pre-diagnose potential employee attitudes towards implementing the GHRM concept into business practice.

In addition, the results of our research enable a deeper interpretation and better understanding of case studies of implementing GHRM practices into business practice.

For example, I.A. Aburahma, Y.M.A. Amuna, and A.M. Aqel [171] analyzed GHRM practices at Gaza University. The extent of their implementation was assessed at a moderate level. The authors underline that there needs to be a clear vision about the selection steps at Gaza University that include the environmental considerations of the job vacancy, as well as the steps in training employees that do not depend on the environmental dimension. The authors recommend more GHRM knowledge among university employees and deeper perceptions about green practices. In achieving these goals, employee readiness surveys for GHRM practices carried out according to our methodology would be very useful.

In another case study on an insurance company from Indonesia, E.T. Wulandari and L.C. Nawangsari [172] analyzed the effect of GHRM on business sustainability. Their results indicate that green recruitment, green training, green compensation, and rewards have positively and significantly impacted business sustainability. However, green performance appraisal has no significant impact. This may be due to the relatively low readiness of employees to use green performance instruments in business practice, as our research shows. In conclusion, the authors recommend an increase in green training for all employees so they can learn and understand how green performance appraisal works. This can be seen as one organizational method for increasing employee readiness for green performance practices.

In one more qualitative study of four development financial institutions from Malaysia, the authors analyzed the impact of GHRM practices on employees’ pro-environmental behaviors [173]. The results showed very enthusiastic opinions about the potential of GHRM practices in the development of pro-environmental behaviors while creating a basis for the positive impact towards climate change and global warming. At the same time, respondents stressed the usefulness of the gradual (phased) implementation of GHRM practices into business practice. The value of this solution is related to the incremental building of employee awareness toward increasingly effective environmental actions. The gradual implementation of these practices also allows for the gradual development of employee readiness for GHRM, representing an organizational factor that increases the scope and effectiveness of using this concept in business practice.

6.4. Limitations and Future Directions of Research

The limitations of the study are mainly due to the use of an inductive research approach and relate to the limitation of the empirical analysis to one country and one socio-cultural context. The social nature of the study and the subjectivity of respondents’ assessments can also be a problem, but in this case, there were attempts to limit this by using three separate approaches to measuring readiness for GHRM and by validating the internal consistency of the measurement scales. It should also be noted that overall, an inductive approach and the subjective nature of respondents’ assessments may raise questions about the robustness of the study’s conclusions. In this case, further research and analysis will be beneficial to establish clear causal links between the variables studied.

The use of a single questionnaire tool in the research process raises the threat of common method bias [174]. To prevent this threat, the following procedural controls were used: (1) an adequate survey design with clear instructions to respondents, ensuring the anonymity of responses and avoiding complex and ambiguous items, (2) methodological separation and diversifying survey scale formats to collect the independent and dependent variables, as well as (3) psychological separation masking the causal link between the independent and dependent variables. In addition, statistical controls were used: (1) the correlation marker technique, which involves including control variables in the survey questionnaire that were conceptually unrelated to the other variables employed in the study, and (2) the regression-based marker technique, which involves including control variables in the regression models analyzed.

At the same time, the considerations presented in the article open up a number of promising new research directions. As the independent variables considered explain approximately 40% of the variation in employee GHRM readiness, further analyses aimed at identifying and assessing other antecedents of the phenomenon under study are possible. Promising avenues of research may also include in-depth and comprehensive analyses of organizational readiness for GHRM implementation that are conducted with consideration of the specific dimension of employee readiness for the implementation of this concept into business practice. An evaluation of different approaches in terms of GHRM in various organizations would also be a valuable direction of research. This could include assessing the diversity of goals, strategies, or practices in the field of GHRM used in different organizations.

In a methodological context, it would be valuable to further reduce common method bias, for example, by using temporal separation in the form of collecting self-reported data from the same source but at different points in time. It will also be valuable to enrich the research methodologically, e.g., through qualitative analyses conducted using case studies of specific employees, employee teams, and/or entire organizations implementing GHRM practices.

7. Conclusions

These research results reduce the research gap in the development of specific methods of measuring employee readiness for GHRM as well as in identifying and assessing the antecedents of employee readiness for GHRM. This paper provides novel and useful information on the perceived importance of readiness for GHRM practices from the perspective of employees from Polish organizations and their readiness to implement the GHRM concept. It also takes into account the impact of antecedents regarding the instrumental approach related to the implementation of specific GHRM practices and the individual behavioral approach related to the theory of readiness to change.

This study makes an original contribution to research on green human resource management by presenting and evaluating a new variable in the form of employee readiness for GHRM, which determines the effectiveness of the implementation of this concept in business practice. Its innovative character primarily stems from the formulation of three specific methods of measuring employee readiness for GHRM within two complementary research approaches: instrumental and change-based approaches. A strength of the study is also the identification and empirical verification of three individual significant antecedents of employee GHRM readiness formation in business practice: personal environmental norms, following the new environmental paradigm, and organizational citizenship behavior toward the environment. The obtained results inspire further research work in the field of factors determining the implementation of GHRM in different types of organizations; they also provide a basis for the formulation of many valuable application conclusions for organizations in the field of programs for the implementation of GHRM systems in business practice.