Entrepreneurial Pathways to Sustainability: A Theoretical Paper on Green Human Resource Management, Green Supply Chain Management, and Entrepreneurial Orientation

Abstract

The textile industry of Pakistan, a major contributor to its economy, is encountering serious sustainability challenges, akin to many developing nations. The literature is replete with assertions on the importance of sustainability; however, cross-functional research is sporadic. This paper theoretically links Green HRM (GHRM) practices, Green SCM (GSCM) practices, and Triple Bottom Line (TBL) performance within this context. In scaffolding through Resource Orchestration (ROT) and Dynamic Capabilities (DCT) theories, a conceptual framework is proposed. We posit that GSCM transforms GHRM practices into tangible, eco-friendly supply chain activities resulting in enhanced sustainable performance, thereby playing a mediating role. Additionally, a unique interplay of Entrepreneurial Orientation (EO) as a moderator between GHRM and GSCM is introduced. Firms with higher levels of EO employ innovative approaches to implement GHRM practices into their supply chain strategies, leading to robust GSCM initiatives. The literature review indicates that research on the synergistic effects of GHRM and GSCM on TBL performance in developing nations is scarce. The study warrants carrying out empirical validation and provides a clear plan for future research. The exclusive emphasis on Pakistan’s textile industry introduces contextual intricacies, facilitating a profound comprehension for implementing sustainable practices within the constraints and opportunities of an emerging economy.

1. Introduction

In recent years, the concept of sustainability has garnered considerable interest in the corporate sector [1]. Firms are increasingly acknowledging the imperative of sustainability, aiming not solely to safeguard the environment but also to ensure their enduring market presence by securing social legitimacy [2]. This recognition stems from the necessity to address the influence of environmental activists and comply with legal mandates [3]. Research has urged that firms, along with making economic benefits, should show that they care about the environment and society, demonstrating that their business strategies are good for the environment and society as a whole [4]. The world’s economies, both industrialized and developing, have suffered because of an uncontrollably high demand for a more environmentally friendly ideology, necessitating a fundamental change toward green issues. Pakistan is a developing nation and plays a significant role in the global textile industry. Pakistan is the ninth largest exporter of textiles in the world with textiles being its top most exported product [5]. The economic significance of Pakistan’s textile sector is ascertained by the fact that it generates 8.5% of GDP, employs 38% of the industrial workforce, and accounts for nearly 60% of total exports [6]. Akin to many other developing nations, these achievements are not without costs, which are resulting from significant sustainability issues, including high energy costs, out-of-date equipment, and inadequate infrastructure [6]. By investigating Pakistan’s textile industry, we can gain a thorough understanding of how emerging countries can reconcile economic progress with sustainable methods.

One functional area that offers vast opportunities for sustainability is human resource management [7]. Many ecological phenomena have been incorporated into bigger human resource expansion frameworks [2,8], and the phrases “eco-friendly HRM” and “Green HRM” have been recently used to clearly describe HRM and ecological concentration [2,8,9]. To achieve sustainability, businesses are embracing a variety of strategies, including the implementation of GHRM. GHRM refers to the incorporation of environmental considerations into HRM practices, such as recruitment, training, performance management, and remuneration [10]. To become a green employer, a company can boost its green operations and green image, enhancing its social performance [9,11]. Extant research shows that the firms that use GHRM practices not only cut down on carbon emissions, which contributes to improved environmental performance [12], but also save money. These HRM practices help save energy and increase the firm’s profits [13]. Previous studies further demonstrate that GHRM strategies can help lower costs and make better use of resources, all of which lead to better economic performance.

The recent literature, however, has isolated the three performance dimensions (economic, social, and environmental) and have studied these separately rather than incorporating them within a single conceptual model. i.e., the Triple Bottom Line (TBL) [14,15,16]. The environmental performance centers upon the ecological consequences of a firm’s operations, encompassing aspects such as resource utilization, waste handling, emissions, and the overall environmental impact [17]. The economic performance encompasses factors such as profitability, cost reductions, and economic value contributed [18], whereas the social performance highlights the societal consequences of a company’s actions on various stakeholders, such as employees, consumers, communities, and society at large [19]. We propose to investigate all three dimensions simultaneously because they contribute to the shared value of the company’s performance [18]. Firms can make more informed decisions that strike a balance between the three dimensions by examining them together [20,21]. Enhancing TBL performance has the potential to yield benefits such as heightened resource efficiency, diminished environmental impact, and strengthened social responsibility. To address this gap in the extant literature, the first aim of the current paper is to propose a conceptual framework that includes different dimensions of GHRM and three dimensions of TBL. Incorporating different practices of GHRM in our conceptual framework is essential for capturing the holistic and nuanced nature of sustainable practices within firms [22].

In the current paper, we explain that each GHRM practice plays a unique role in fostering environmental consciousness and sustainable behavior among employees. For instance, recruitment practices ensure the hiring of individuals aligned with the firm’s environmental values, while training initiatives cultivate a workforce capable of integrating sustainability into their daily tasks [23]. Green involvement asserts the importance of active participation and proactive engagement of employees in sustainability efforts within the firm [24]. It promotes a culture of environmental responsibility, allowing to harness the combined efforts of employees to gain substantial environmental advantages and improve overall TBL performance. Green performance management provides non-monetary incentives for employees to contribute actively to environmental goals, whereas green pay and rewards fetch monetary benefits as recognition of eco-friendly activities. Drawing from Dynamic Capabilities Theory (DCT) [25], we argue that GHRM practices, being unique, rare, invaluable, and inimitable for each firm, can create resources that are required to embrace sustainability. By encompassing different GHRM practices, our conceptual framework acknowledges the interconnectedness and synergies among these practices.

A thorough review of the existing literature reveals that the connection between GHRM and GSCM involves incorporating environmental concerns into supply chain activities, such as purchasing, production, and distribution [26], while also exploring their effects on TBL, an area that has not yet received much attention. Thus, there is a scarcity of research that has examined the impact of GHRM on TBL performance while considering the role of GSCM [27,28,29]. For example, numerous studies have investigated the connection between GHRM and financial performance [30,31,32,33], while others have focused on the connection between GSCM and financial performance [34,35,36,37,38,39]. An integrative approach is vital for a comprehensive understanding of how GHRM contributes to GSCM and, subsequently, TBL performance. Renwick et al. [40] have identified the need for further research to establish the causal mechanisms and potential moderating factors that may affect the association between GHRM practices and TBL performance. So, the second goal of this paper is to look at the potential mediating effects of GCSM and come up with a complete conceptual model to examine how GHRM practices lead to long-lasting results and help the company succeed in economic, social, and environmental aspects. We argue that GHRM is vital in disseminating environmental goals, and it promotes the hiring of eco-conscious individuals who will work to achieve these goals within the supply chain department [41]. We propose the use of Resource Orchestration Theory (ROT) in this conceptual model to understand the relationship between GHRM and GSCM from a theoretical perspective. Our assertion is that GHRM practices serve as the intervention that catalyzes the adoption of GSCM to ultimately enhance TBL performance [42,43]. By properly orchestrating these resources, firms can achieve sustainable results, such as reduced environmental impact, higher resource efficiency, and enhanced business reputation, all of which are essential components of TBL performance.

As a third goal of the study, we propose and conceptualize the use of EO as a catalyst for strengthening the relationship between GHRM and GSCM, thereby augmenting their ultimate impact on TBL. Covin and Wales [44] define EO as the methods, processes, and decisions firms develop to generate entirely new innovative products, services, markets, or business practices. Research indicates that companies with strong EO are more inclined to adopt and integrate GHRM practices, which enhance their GSCM efforts and yield superior long-term outcomes [45]. EO manages and influences this association by exerting an influence on the levels of innovation and proactivity [45]. EO fosters a proactive mindset toward identifying and exploiting opportunities related to sustainable practices. The proactive attitude aligns with the objectives of GHRM, prioritizing the recruitment of environmentally conscious individuals and the development of GHRM policies that assist the company in achieving its environmental objectives [46]. Firms that possess a high level of entrepreneurial orientation (EO) are more inclined to initiate and execute environmentally friendly initiatives throughout their supply chain [47]. This inclination promotes the enhanced integration of GSCM practices. Previous studies have primarily explored moderators in the realm of sustainable practices, often considering variables such as organizational culture, leadership styles, and employee engagement [45,48]. However, the inclusion of EO as a moderator in our model offers a novel contribution. We want to shed light on unexplored aspects of sustainability by looking into how an entrepreneurial mindset affects the interaction between GHRM and GSCM. This will help us understand how organizational entrepreneurialism can impact the effectiveness of sustainable practices within the larger framework of TBL outcomes. This moderating effect of entrepreneurial orientation on the relationship between GHRM and GSCM is based on the theoretical foundations from DCT [25]. The application of DCT facilitates understanding how textile firms in Pakistan can consistently acquire knowledge, engage in innovative practices, and adjust their operations to effectively align with sustainability objectives [49]. We theorize that firms with higher levels of EO leverage their innovative and dynamic capabilities to effectively implement GHRM practices into their supply chain strategies, resulting in robust and dynamic GSCM initiatives.

The significance of this study lies in its capacity to propose a strategic framework for achieving sustainable performance specifically in the context of developing countries. Thus far, the extant literature studying GHRM and GSCM has primarily focused on evidence from developed countries, e.g., Italy [50]. Developed countries often possess state-of-the-art technologies, extensive waste management systems, and sophisticated infrastructure for sustainable energy production. Technologies such as advanced recycling facilities, emission control mechanisms, and renewable energy sources, like solar and wind power, are more prevalent [50]. These luxuries enable developed nations to address environmental challenges more effectively. In contrast, many developing countries, like Pakistan, face limitations in adopting such technologies due to financial constraints, inadequate infrastructure, and a lack of access to cutting-edge solutions [17]. For instance, the high initial costs associated with renewable energy sources may hinder their widespread implementation, making it challenging for developing nations to keep up with their developed counterparts in environmentally friendly practices [51]. Therefore, the environment of a developing country i.e., Pakistan, is critical to consider when implementing GHRM, GSCM, and TBL performance, as the challenges and opportunities that businesses face in these environments differ greatly from those in developed countries [33]. Pakistan, through the Environmental Protection Act of 1997, has lately adopted several policies meant to support environmentally friendly textile industry practices [52]. Energy efficiency and waste reduction policies, among other ecologically sustainable practices, are underlined in the National Textile Policy 2020–2025 [53]. Leading textile companies, for instance, have certified ISO 14001 to improve their environmental performance [54]. Companies participating in community development, labor rights, and environmental sustainability are driving increasing frequency of CSR activities with an eye toward sustainable development goals (SDGs) [53]. These initiatives show a rising awareness of the need of GSCM and GHRM in reaching long-term sustainability and competitiveness in the worldwide market. Furthermore, within the context of an emerging economy, where there is a growing emphasis on sustainable development, this research has the potential to make a substantial contribution toward the formulation of policies and strategies that are in line with internationally recognized sustainability benchmarks. The results of this study have the potential to equip a firm with tools to become an environmentally accountable and socially aware entity within the global market. This, in turn, can enhance the confidence and reliance of international customers and investors in these firms.

The rest of the paper is structured as follows. The next section “Materials and Methods” provides a literature review that outlines the existing literature and theoretical framework as a strong foundation for the investigation. In this section, we rigorously analyze previous studies on GHRM, GSCM, EO, and TBL performance, highlighting areas where research is lacking and providing a rationale for the suggested theoretical model. The third section focuses on the development of a conceptual model and the formulation of propositions. The fourth section focuses on the discussion of the theoretical implications, practical applications, and agenda for future research. The fifth section concludes with a concise overview of important findings and acknowledges limitations.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Theoretical Foundation

This study is based on two theories that are widely used in both the HRM and GSCM literature, i.e., DCT [25] and ROT [36]. This study justifies using DCT in conjunction with ROT because of their complementary characteristics as both theories helped in developing the proposed framework. For firms in developing economies, the ability to dynamically adapt (employing DCT) and efficiently orchestrate limited resources (employing ROT) can provide a critical advantage, enabling them to compete more effectively on a global scale.

Dynamic Capabilities Theory (DCT): Developing countries like Pakistan face the significant challenge of resource scarcity [6]. However, DCT posits that firms can overcome these limitations by effectively deploying dynamic capabilities. For example, GHRM practices, such as green training and development initiatives, can be dynamically adjusted to upskill employees, making them more adept at implementing sustainable practices with limited resources [55]. The application of DCT [25] facilitates understanding how textile firms can consistently acquire knowledge, engage in innovative practices, and adjust their operations to effectively align with sustainability objectives [56]. The relevance of DCT arises within the textile sector, where firms encounter a range of environmental challenges, regulatory modifications, and customer demands pertaining to sustainability. This theory facilitates the comprehension of how textile firms can cultivate dynamic capabilities to effectively incorporate sustainability practices into their HRM and SCM strategies [57]. By adopting a dynamic capabilities approach, textile firms can improve their ability to meet sustainability demands and optimize their resources and competencies to achieve superior TBL performance.

Resource Orchestration Theory (ROT): On the other hand, ROT focuses on the strategic management of resources by firms to attain a lasting competitive advantage [43]. For example, within the realm of sustainability, it is imperative for textile firms to not only adjust to the ever-changing sustainability environment but also to effectively orchestrate their resources to promote sustainable practices and attain exceptional TBL performance. ROT provides significant insights into how firms coordinate and integrate strategic management resources within the textile industry. The application of ROT can guide Pakistani firms to systematically manage their limited resources to drive sustainable outcomes [36]. Through careful orchestration of resources, firms can achieve a balance between environmental, economic, and social performance, thereby aligning with the principles of the triple bottom line. Leveraging resources under ROT involves making strategic decisions to maximize the impact of available assets. In the context of developing countries, this could mean prioritizing areas that offer the highest returns in terms of sustainability, such as improving energy efficiency in manufacturing processes or adopting waste reduction technologies [43]. Managers can also orchestrate partnerships with local and international stakeholders to access additional resources and expertise [58].

2.1.1. GHRM Practices

Researchers often argue that a firm’s human resources are its greatest asset because they enhance peoples’ skills, abilities, and motivations and contribute to the development of capabilities that are unique, rare, invaluable, and inimitable [59,60,61]. In other words, human resources provide a company with a competitive advantage over its rivals due to their uniqueness. The practice of designing and implementing procedures and policies for managing a firm’s human resources in a way that encourages workers to be both passionate and productive in their efforts to help the company succeed is known as human resource management [62]. In response to growing environmental concerns, more companies are adopting international environmental protection measures [11,63,64]. Sustainable environmental practices, public participation in sustainability initiatives, and incremental enhancements to existing infrastructure all require a significant investment in human capital [40]. The connection between green business and human resources highlights the importance of eco-friendly actions taken by staff. GHRM, as a management philosophy, prioritizes the inclusion of environmental sustainability in HRM procedures [28]. Supporting individuals, communities, the natural world, and the business community, GHRM involves several procedures, policies, and processes aimed at making corporate personnel more environmentally conscious [2,28,65].

The existing literature has identified a wide variety of GHRM practices [40,66]. Recruitment, selection, training, performance appraisal, rewards, teamwork, management of formal cultures, and management of organizational learning are all practices that have been discussed in the latent literature [67]. However, the most recent literature (e.g., Jabbour and Santos [67]; Jackson, Renwick, Jabbour, and Muller-Camen [8]; Renwick, Jabbour, Muller-Camen, Redman, and Wilkinson [2]; Tang, Chen, Jiang, Paille, and Jia [10]) has conveyed that recruitment and selection, training and development, performance management, pay and reward, and involvement are the most representative GHRM practices.

Table 1. Conceptualization of GHRM practices.

GHRM Practice	Conceptualization
Green Recruitment and Selection (GRS)	The firm prefers to hire applicants who are committed and sensitive to environmental issues, as well as those who are eager to contribute to this cause, whether they are recruited internally or externally.
Green Training (GT)	The firm develops a system of environmental learning practices to increase the environmental management knowledge and skills of its personnel.
Green Performance Management (GPM)	Employees’ contributions to the firm will be measured by how effectively they manage the company’s environmental impact.
Green Pay and Reward (GPR)	Programs offer incentives, both monetary and otherwise, to employees who display positive attitudes and actions in the workplace that contribute to environmental management.
Green Involvement (GI)	Employees are given the option to voluntarily participate in environmental management. Engagement, collaborative culture, and expertise are the key types, and they all aim to increase employees’ commitment to environmental management within firm.

presents the GHRM practices categorized in the existing literature on GHRM and conceptualized by Tang, Chen, Jiang, Paille, and Jia [10].

2.1.2. Green Supply Chain Management (GSCM)

GSCM is an approach that is based on the implementation of sustainability management principles throughout the entire customer order cycle, including but not limited to design, procurement, manufacturing and assembly, packaging, and logistics and distribution activities [68]. The business sector began to develop concerns about environmental issues and sustainability in the late 20th century, which led to the development of GSCM. During the 1990s, several businesses began to introduce environmental management systems and sustainable business practices into their supply chain operations [69]. These techniques included recycling and energy-saving, to name just two examples. Businesses began incorporating environmentally friendly and socially responsible business practices into their supply chain management strategies during this time, coining the term GSCM [70].

Internal and External GSCM

The term “internal GSCM practices” in this study refers to a set of practices that individual manufacturers can implement and manage independently. The implementation of “external practices” in the field of GSCM often necessitates a certain degree of collaboration with external stakeholders or partners, such as suppliers and customers. According to Brandenburg et al. [71], the implementation of both internal and external practices in GSCM has the potential to lead to improvements in environmental, operational, and economic performance. Simultaneously, improving environmental performance can enhance economic performance by reducing waste and conserving resources. Operational performance improvement, such as the reduction of inventory levels and the enhancement of product quality, through collaborative actions in green supply chains can also contribute to the improvement of economic performance [72]. Social performance is significantly influenced by both internal and external GSCM initiatives as these not only enhance environmental stewardship but also foster a safer and healthier workplace environment [18]. GSCM practices such as green procurement, eco-design, and collaboration with suppliers for waste reduction improve employee well-being and foster goodwill within the community with which these firms interact [73].

2.1.3. Entrepreneurial Orientation

Entrepreneurial orientation (EO) refers to a strategic management construct that encompasses a firm’s inclination and capacity to actively participate in entrepreneurial activities while also demonstrating a willingness to undertake calculated risks to identify and capitalize on novel opportunities [74]. This entails adopting a proactive, innovative, and risk-embracing stance when making decisions, allocating resources, and exploring the market. EO is a multifaceted construct that encompasses various dimensions, such as autonomy, innovativeness, risk-taking, competitive aggressiveness, and proactiveness [44].

The notion of EO has undergone development over the course of time because of numerous theoretical and empirical contributions. The seminal contributions of Covin and Wales [44] laid the groundwork for the concept of EO by emphasizing the significant role of entrepreneurial behavior in shaping firm performance. The researchers identified and delineated the fundamental dimensions of EO and provided evidence to support the notion that firms displaying a higher degree of EO are more likely to attain significant competitive advantages [45]. Moreover, scholars such as Putria and Gunawan [46] have underscored the significance of contextual factors in influencing the effect of EO on firm performance. The authors posited that the efficacy of EO is dependent on the specific industry context and the firm’s internal resources and capabilities. Scholars have investigated the impact of EO on promoting sustainability-oriented behaviors in recent years. Wang et al. [75] conducted a study that provides empirical evidence on the importance of EO in fostering sustainable competitive advantages within Chinese manufacturing firms. The research underscores the significance of an entrepreneurial mindset in propelling innovations and practices that prioritize sustainability.

In general, EO has undergone a transformation, shifting its emphasis from behaviors exhibited at the firm level to a dynamic capability that impacts a firm’s capacity to adjust and innovate in response to shifting environments. The integration of EO with other strategic management theories and its examination in various contexts have contributed to a deeper understanding of its implications for firm performance and sustainable development [76].

2.1.4. Triple Bottom Line Performance

The TBL framework encourages companies to examine the broader impacts of their operations and to strive for a balance between economic, social, and environmental outcomes [77]. This is accomplished by encouraging businesses to consider the broader impacts of their operations. If a firm measures and reports on the TBL’s performance, it can improve its sustainability processes, increase its brand image, and attract socially responsible investors and customers. Following Elkington’s [78] suggestion, the TBL concept has garnered a lot of interest and has been the focus of substantial research as well as extensive discussion. Following the initial public presentation of the TBL concept, numerous academic studies [14,15,16,18,77,79,80,81] and business case studies [82,83,84] explored the potential benefits and challenges of implementing TBL reporting and performance measurement practices.

Economic Performance

Economic performance consists of monetary indicators, such as revenue, profitability, and return on investment [78]. In addition to environmental and social sustainability, the economic component of the triple bottom line highlights the need to achieve financial sustainability. Economic performance is contingent upon a variety of factors, both internal and external. Internal influences can include the financial management techniques, investment decisions, and resource distribution of a firm [19]. External variables can include the general economic climate, the level of competition, and government laws and regulations [85]. It is essential to emphasize, however, that economic performance is equally based on human variables, such as employee knowledge, abilities, and motivation [32,86].

Social Performance

Social performance comprises elements such as social responsibility, community engagement, and employee well-being [87]. In addition to environmental and economic sustainability, the social component of the triple bottom line highlights the necessity of having beneficial social consequences. In addition, human variables have a crucial role in influencing social performance. For instance, a company’s dedication to social responsibility depends on the principles and attitudes of its leaders and employees [18,86].

Environmental Performance

Environmental performance refers to a business’s environmental impact. Environmental performance encompasses energy consumption, greenhouse gas emissions, waste reduction, and sustainable resource utilization [88]. The commitment of a corporation to environmental sustainability depends on the values and attitudes of its executives and workers [17]. Employee participation and training can help improve environmental performance. A firm can provide training and education programs to employees to improve their understanding of environmental sustainability and promote sustainable workplace practices [89]. Employee engagement programs can also promote environmental activities, such as energy-saving programs and trash reduction campaigns. Collaboration with key stakeholders can also enhance environmental performance [11]. Working with suppliers, customers, and other partners can assist businesses in identifying areas for improvement and developing strategies to lessen their environmental impact. In addition, interacting with local communities and other stakeholders can aid firms in building relationships and addressing local environmental concerns [63].

3. Conceptual Framework

In the following section, we elaborate that there remains a dearth of comprehensive research that thoroughly explores the intricate interconnections between GHRM and GSCM and their influence on the TBL performance. We have theorized potential linkages between GHRM, GSCM, EO, and TBL using ROT and DCT and by also using sporadic evidence from the extant research in the following section.

3.1. GHRM Practices and TBL Performance

The three pillars of sustainability, encompassing people, profit, and the planet, provide a comprehensive framework for understanding and addressing the complex challenges associated with sustainable development [82]. This triad reflects the interconnectedness of social, economic, and environmental dimensions, emphasizing the need for a balanced and integrated approach to decision-making. The social pillar underscores the importance of human well-being and societal equity, recognizing that sustainable development must prioritize the welfare of individuals and communities [33]. GHRM practices, which prioritize employee well-being, diversity, and inclusive work environments, strengthen the social pillar [4]. By fostering a positive workplace culture, GHRM contributes to social equity, employee satisfaction, and overall societal welfare [90]. Based on ROT, we argue that firms should identify the essential resources required to execute GHRM practices, such as staff training, communication initiatives, and green recruitment practices [26,42,86]. The economic pillar acknowledges the role of financial viability and responsible business practices in fostering long-term sustainability [18]. GHRM encourages responsible business practices, which can enhance financial performance and contribute to the long-term profitability and stability of the firm. Lastly, the environmental pillar highlights the imperative to protect ecosystems, conserve resources, and mitigate the impacts of human activities on the planet [42]. GHRM promotes environmentally conscious behaviors among employees, contributing to reduced carbon footprints, waste reduction, and resource conservation [9]. Green initiatives, such as eco-friendly workplace policies and practices, align with GHRM’s goal of preserving the planet for future generations.

In the textile sector of developing countries like Pakistan, the relationship between green practices and TBL performance presents unique dynamics. In this context, the social pillar gains prominence due to the labor-intensive nature of the industry, where GHRM practices focusing on fair labor standards and employee welfare programs can enhance employee satisfaction and community relations [91]. Economically, GHRM in the textile sector offers opportunities for productivity gains and innovation, although resource constraints and regulatory barriers may limit economic benefits compared to developed countries [92]. Addressing environmental challenges, GHRM practices can promote sustainability, but the transition may be gradual due to financial constraints and technological limitations. The contextual nuances in developing countries’ textile sector necessitate tailored approaches to GHRM practices, highlighting the need for empirical research to inform sustainable strategies in this specific industry context. Research on developing countries’ IT industries has revealed that firms implementing GHRM practices not only reduce carbon emissions but also save money [73]. These practices help save energy and increase the firm’s profits [13]. The literature also shows that green practices contribute to improving the environment and social image of firms [50,93,94]. These discussions produce the following proposition:

Proposition 1. 

GHRM has a positive impact on environmental (a), economic (b), and social performance (c).

3.2. GHRM and GSCM

The correlation between GHRM and GSCM is crucial for promoting sustainable business practices [40]. The integration of environmental values and behavior into the organizational culture through GHRM leads to the promotion of sustainable practices across the supply chain. GHRM practices assure that employees possess both knowledge of the company’s environmental objectives and the essential abilities required to execute eco-friendly activities [24]. For example, green training programs provide employees with education regarding the significance of sustainable practices and teach them how to incorporate these practices into their routine GSCM activities. Having a strong understanding and dedication to sustainability allows employees to make learned choices and effectively implement GSCM strategies [2,8].

Implementing GHRM techniques will greatly improve the legitimacy and reputation of a company, therefore improving ties with outside supply chain partners that give environmental sustainability first priority. This claim is consistent with institutional theory, which holds that companies follow specific policies in order to fit society’s expectations and outside pressure [25]. Adoption of GHRM techniques can pressure suppliers to adopt ecologically sustainable supply chain practices [89]. GHRM procedures cover a range of tasks, including recruiting, selection, training, performance management, and incentives, all of which help to define employees’ opinions and behavior regarding environmental issues [40]. More proactive and efficient GSCM practices can result from these environmentally mindful actions. Working with outside partners, employees are more likely to support and carry out green supply chain projects, therefore promoting sustainability both inside and outside of the company [8].

Furthermore, DCT provides the foundations for GHRM practices to support the cultivation of a forward-thinking and inventive workforce, which enables them to successfully implement GSCM plans [95]. It is argued that in the latent literature GHRM promotes a culture of ongoing improvement and environmental responsibility, urging staff to actively engage in green initiatives improving the sustainability of the supply chain. This collaboration across different departments is essential for environmentally friendly sourcing, waste reduction, and energy-efficient supply chain operations [32]. The integration of GHRM and GSCM results in greater environmental performance, cost reduction, and an improved corporate reputation. This eventually contributes to the overall performance of the firm in terms of the triple bottom line (TBL), encompassing social, environmental, and economic aspects [29]. We developed the following proposition based on the foundations of DCT and the arguments presented above:

Proposition 2. 

GHRM positively affects GSCM.

3.3. GSCM and TBL Performance

In their 2017 study of the automobile sector, Chu et al. examined GSCM as a supply chain management strategy that addresses product design, material selection, material supply, and production processes. According to Srivastava [96], GSCM is the incorporation of environmental considerations into all aspects of the supply chain, including design, material selection, manufacturing, distribution of the finished product to the consumer, and life cycle management. According to Liu et al. [97], the primary goal of GSCM is to transform products and processes into more sustainable ones and help supply chain enterprises stay in business. To that end, an increasing number of studies in the academic literature investigate the concept of GSCM [48,98]. The literature divides GSCM into two categories: external GSCM (Ext-GSCM) and internal GSCM. A single manufacturer manages and executes Ext-GSCM activities, which do not directly involve the supplier or customer [99]. Internal environmental management and eco-design are examples of such tasks [27]. Diabat et al. [100] and Zhu, Sarkis, and Lai [72] found a positive correlation between environmental performance and Ext-GSCM practices, including green purchasing, reverse logistics, and consumer engagement. According to additional research, green purchasing and environmental cooperation would motivate suppliers and consumers to operate in a more environmentally friendly manner and stop doing things that are harmful to the environment. This would have a positive impact on how manufacturing companies treat the environment [100,101]. Collaboration with suppliers can help businesses use environmentally friendly components in their final products. This improves the environmental performance of businesses [77].

GSCM not only improves a company’s environmental performance, but it also significantly improves its financial performance [50]. Firms can save money by being more efficient and consuming fewer resources by emphasizing eco-friendly manufacturing practices in their internal GSCM [77]. For example, Guang Shi et al. [102] discovered that eco-design, which is a component of Int-GSCM, implies that waste reduction and resource efficiency will result in cost savings, which will improve the firm’s economic performance. Similarly, Awan et al. [103] discovered a significant correlation between eco-design practices and cost reduction through increased chances of selling items on foreign markets, as well as other benefits that outweigh the costs of implementing these practices. Studies have also demonstrated that Ext-GSCM enhances a corporation’s economic performance [100,102]. Gimenez, Sierra, and Rodon [77], for example, found that economic cooperation with suppliers increased production efficiency and reduced operational costs by eliminating waste in manufacturing processes.

Furthermore, there is evidence that GSCM practices have positive social impacts, such as increasing consumer loyalty and improving the company’s reputation [14,104]. People expect green practices to enhance working conditions for employees and the local community, leading to healthier lives [68]. Elkington [78] contends that employing environmentally friendly and less polluting industrial techniques benefits both personnel and society. Geng et al. [105] stated that corporations can help achieve a variety of social goals, including customer protection, market transparency, and environmental protection. By using GSCM in their business practices, firms may be able to improve their social performance. Despite the fact that there have been few studies on the relationship between GSCM practices and social performance, the studies that have been conducted show that eco-friendly practices have many social benefits, such as increasing customer loyalty [106], improving the company’s image [107], improving healthcare, equal opportunity, safe products and working conditions, respecting the law, and being ethical [108]. In developing countries like Pakistan, firms need to adopt sustainable supply chain practices to distinguish themselves in the market, thus enhancing their reputation. The application of DCT in this context shows that firms with the ability to integrate and reconfigure resources can better adapt to environmental and social demands, fostering consumer trust and loyalty [55]. Additionally, ROT supports this by emphasizing the strategic structuring, bundling, and leveraging of resources to maximize their social, environmental, and economic impact. This proactive approach will lead to reduced costs, increased efficacy of environmental actions, and a better corporate reputation, enhancing TBL performance [43]. Therefore, the following proposition is predicated on that notion:

Proposition 3. 

GSCM positively affects environmental (a), economic (b), and social performance (c).

3.4. Mediation of GSCM between GHRM and TBL Performance

Our proposed model conceptualizes GSCM as a mediator, acknowledging its crucial role in orchestrating and optimizing resource utilization to improve the overall performance of the firm. GHRM’s principles and initiatives transform into tangible organizational outcomes through GSCM’s environmentally responsible practices in supply chain activities. This mediating role is theoretically based on ROT, which says that having resources is not enough; how well they are combined and organized creates value [109]. The logic behind GSCM’s role as a mediator lies in its ability to align, optimize, and channel the green initiatives fostered by GHRM across the entire supply chain spectrum. This ensures that sustainability practices permeate the entire organizational eco-system, not just HRM [50]. Thus, GSCM, informed by the principles of ROT, becomes the strategic mechanism through which GHRM practices are harnessed, translated, and ultimately contribute to the holistic sustainable performance of the firm. The literature has also linked GHRM and GSCM, suggesting a joint study [41]. The existing literature, however, describes the intersection of GHRM and GSCM more as a research gap than a settled issue [89,110]. So far, only Zaid et al. [111] have conducted an empirical study that looks into GHRM and GSCM (as a mediator) and presents how these practices affect all three aspects of TBL performance.

GSCM is, therefore, considered to be a means of effective strategic management which improves the sustainable performance of manufacturing firms [95]. These practices can lead to better performance in the three areas that make up TBL performance: the environment, society, and money [50]. In the literature, there are several studies that support the mediating role of GSCM between GHRM and TBL performance. Zaid and Jaaron [112], in their study, presented a conceptual model stating that GSCM practices may improve the performance of GHRM and TBL. Maskuroh, Widyanty, Nurhidajat, Wardhana, and Fahlevi [29] conducted another study on the nexus of GSCM and GHRM, stating that GSCM can help both GHRM and TBL perform better. The study showed that GSCM practices, like green procurement and life cycle assessment, can help employees improve their skills and knowledge, which can make them happier at work and more motivated.

The interconnected supply chain in the textile sector often spans local and international boundaries. GSCM practices, from sustainable sourcing of raw materials to eco-friendly production processes, have become pivotal not only for environmental conservation but also for ensuring the economic sustainability of the sector [91]. As resource efficiency and sustainable practices become increasingly important in developing countries like Pakistan, GSCM plays a crucial role in aligning the economic, social, and environmental aspects of TBL performance in the textile industry. We developed the following propositions based on an analysis of the extensive literature and arguments presented above:

Proposition 4. 

GSCM mediates the relationship between GHRM practices and TBL performance.

3.5. Moderation of EO between GHRM and GSCM

We can view a firm’s strategic orientation (e.g., entrepreneurial orientation) as a valuable intangible resource that guides strategic actions, thereby improving performance [113]. Prior business scholars discovered empirical evidence to support this orientation strategy thesis. Murray et al. [114] revealed that export ventures in China with greater degrees of EO in marketing are more likely to engage in strategic pricing, new product development, and marketing communication activities. Similarly, Chan and Ma [115] demonstrated that both internal and external EO are significant predictors of firms’ environmental strategy practices at the strategic level and within the marketing functional area. In conclusion, the preceding discussion offers both theoretical and empirical support for the favorable influence of these two forms of EO on corporate environmental activities, like GSCM.

Firms with a high level of EO quickly embrace and implement new environmentally friendly technology and practices, including them into their human resources and supply chain operations [45]. By adopting sustainability practices early on, the firm ensures a unified and comprehensive approach to sustainability. Entrepreneurial firms demonstrate a greater propensity to assume risks and allocate resources toward green initiatives, such as financing staff training programs (GHRM) [75] and creating sustainable sourcing and logistics strategies (GSCM) [46]. The proactive, innovative, and risk-taking attributes of EO foster a comprehensive perspective of the firm, facilitating the incorporation of GHRM and GSCM into a cohesive strategy. The function of EO in moderating is significant as it improves the efficiency of GHRM practices by creating an atmosphere that encourages innovative and aggressive sustainability activities [45]. EO drives companies to thrive in both GHRM and SCM, actively promoting their environmentally friendly initiatives and boosting their market position [42]. The synchronization of HR and SCM in adopting green practices enhances their marketing communication, integrating green practices into their brand identity. Additionally, EO cultivates a culture of collaboration and cross-functional teamwork, enhancing communication and coordination between the HR and SCM departments [116]. This guarantees that green activities are in harmony and mutually supportive. The attributes of EO (proactiveness, innovativeness, and risk-taking) enable the smooth integration of GHRM and GSCM practices, hence boosting the overall influence on a firm’s sustainable performance [47].

Both internal and external EO have the potential to positively impact GSCM; their separate origins (internal vs. external) suggest that they may generate their respective influence on GSCM through different pathways. According to DCT, dynamic capabilities can stem from intra-organizational learning and information exchange among employees of the firm that can primarily contribute to the impact of internal EO on GSCM [117]. This perspective views internal EO as an integral aspect of a company’s basic values and principles. Business executives, motivated by their own environmental philosophy, frequently initiate it. Due to the encouragement of these leaders, this personal worldview will ultimately permeate the entire firm [24]. In conclusion, the above analysis shows that internal EO will help employees become more aware of how important it is to run operations in an environmentally friendly way, which will then encourage them to look for ways to make these operations less harmful to the environment [118].

The entrepreneurial landscape of the Pakistani textile sector introduces distinctive dynamics into the relationship between GHRM, GSCM, and TBL performance. With a strong emphasis on innovation and adaptability, EO in this context may shape how textile firms integrate GHRM and GSCM practices. Pakistani textile entrepreneurs may leverage EO to respond proactively to evolving market demands, regulatory changes, and sustainability trends. The entrepreneurial spirit can drive the adoption of green practices in a manner that aligns with the specific challenges and opportunities prevalent in the Pakistani textile sector, thus influencing the overall TBL performance.

ROT [36] provides a potential explanation for the impact of external EO. According to this view, businesses can orchestrate unique resources, e.g., EO, to achieve a competitive advantage [43]. If businesses can leverage these entrepreneurial resources through effective GHRM practices, their stability, legitimacy, and eventual survival chances will increase [33]. These orientations may also be viewed as significant influencers in environmental management research that can enhance the adoption of environmentally friendly practices throughout the supply chain. From this perspective, it is likely that managers who feel a strong need to respond to the environmental demands of influential stakeholders would be more likely to participate in pro-environmental activities (such as GSCM) to meet these demands. Given that this management view comes under the definition of EO, it is likely that this orientation has a beneficial effect on GHRM and GSCM. Taken together, the above discussion proposes the following proposition:

Proposition 5. 

EO moderates the relationship between GHRM practices and GSCM.

Based on the literature review and the above propositions, the following conceptual model is proposed in Figure 1, with all study links, along with their dimensions.

4. Discussion

The current state of the corporate environment has demonstrated a significant shift toward the adoption of sustainable practices. An increasing number of businesses are driving this shift by recognizing the enduring benefits of sustainability, not only from an ecological standpoint but also in terms of maintaining ongoing market significance [1,3]. The existing body of literature has primarily focused on examining the merits of GHRM and GSCM. However, there remains a dearth of comprehensive research that thoroughly explores the intricate interconnections between these two domains and their collective influence on TBL performance. The primary objective of this study is to present a comprehensive model for sustainability by offering a thorough understanding of the interactions among these elements, with a particular focus on the crucial significance of EO.

GHRM and GSCM are strategic initiatives that aim to integrate environmental considerations into traditionally non-sustainable areas. The first mentioned study by Tang, Chen, Jiang, Paille, and Jia [10] primarily examines the incorporation of environmentally friendly practices within human resource functions. In contrast, the second study by Yu, Chavez, and Feng [26] places greater emphasis on the integration of ecological considerations within supply chain activities. The primary objective of the firm is to minimize the ecological impact of its operations while simultaneously improving its social and financial outcomes. Numerous studies in the existing body of literature have extensively demonstrated the distinct effects of various factors on performance, as evidenced by Jackson, Renwick, Jabbour, and Muller-Camen [8] and Zhu, Sarkis, and Lai [39]. However, the current body of research on the collective effectiveness of these interventions is limited.

This study proposes that the concept of value, as per ROT, is not solely dependent on the resources themselves but rather on the coordinated and strategic use of these resources [109]. We postulate that the implementation of GHRM practices produces unique resources and capabilities, which qualify as dynamic capabilities. GSCM channels these resources and capabilities to improve the firm’s overall performance, aligning with the TBL performance. The field of GSCM offers a valuable framework for implementing environmentally sustainable practices within firms. By integrating green practices not only within the human resources department but also throughout the entire firm, GSCM facilitates the achievement of enhanced environmental, economic, and social outcomes [50,95].

4.1. Future Directions

Further research is required by the complicated and multifarious interaction between GHRM and GSCM. Green training and development, employee participation in sustainability projects, and green performance management—among other GHRM practices—seek to ingrain environmental principles into the corporate culture. By encouraging a workforce more cognizant of sustainability and hence supporting the use of green practices throughout the supply chain, these activities can indirectly affect GSCM. Establishing a straight cause-and-effect relationship between GHRM and external GSCM is difficult though, given the several mediating elements engaged—organizational strategy, market conditions, and the dynamics of the supply chain. Although internal GHRM policies surely help to build an organizational ethos that supports sustainability, other factors may affect the way these internal practices are translated into exterior supply chain activities. Examining this relationship hence requires considering the larger organizational and environmental setting.

More empirical investigation is required to investigate the possible channels by which GHRM could directly affect outside GSCM. Such research could look at the influence of stakeholder involvement on the acceptance of green supply chain practices, the efficacy of cross-functional teams in promoting green projects, and the part that leadership dedication to sustainability plays. Examining these elements will help future studies to offer a more complex knowledge of how GHRM affects external GSCM and pinpoint the circumstances under which this relationship is most efficient.

This conceptual framework’s potential development and validation offer numerous opportunities for further investigation and verification. The primary concern lies in the necessity for empirical validation. A diverse range of research approaches, customized to address individual research inquiries, is an enticing opportunity for academic exploration. Quantitative methodologies, such as surveys, experiments, or longitudinal designs, may offer empirical findings based on data. Future research involving surveys or experiments may test the propositions empirically and provide results. In addition to this, qualitative approaches, such as in-depth interviews, case studies, or ethnographic explorations, may provide further understanding of the complexities and contextual factors at play. Finally, it would be valuable to analyze the practical implications of the framework in various sectors and geographical contexts. By examining the suitability and relevance of the model in different organizational cultures, industry sectors, and socio-economic contexts, one can uncover whether the model possesses universal or unique characteristics. This exploration can facilitate the development of contextual adjustments or revisions.

4.2. Managerial Implications

Managers should acknowledge the crucial role of GHRM in promoting a culture of sustainability from a practical perspective. By incorporating eco-friendly recruitment techniques, establishing key performance indicators (KPIs) for environmentally conscious actions, and integrating them into incentive programs, firms can greatly increase employees’ involvement and dedication to environmental objectives. Furthermore, it is imperative to broaden the scope of GSCM procedures to encompass environmental considerations in all operational aspects, going beyond conventional supply chain activities. According to Zhu, Sarkis, and Lai [72], GSCM is considered a novel concept in developing countries, such as Pakistan, which are in the early stages of incorporating essential green practices. As a result, local managers might encounter difficulties in implementing these practices, as noted by Gavronski et al. [119]. The joint adoption of various GHRM and GSCM practices requires a substantial investment, and firms may experience a delay in realizing direct economic benefits. Focusing solely on a limited range of environmental practices could potentially undermine positive performance results. It is particularly vital for firms in developing countries, like Pakistan, to develop a comprehensive action plan for implementing GSCM and GHRM.

Managers should also recognize the EO of their employees, especially when promoting green practices in the workplace. Such employees’ green recruiting integrates environmental considerations into the recruitment and selection process. Firms aiming for improved environmental performance might include an environmental dimension in their hiring criteria, favoring candidates who demonstrate environmental awareness [2,7,67,120]. Developing and incorporating KPIs into the company’s evaluation tools that capture various dimensions of employees’ green behaviors can significantly boost their sense of meaningfulness. Furthermore, the company’s rewards and incentives systems can enhance employees’ perceptions of equity and fairness by integrating these green behaviors through initiatives such as green gain sharing, green employee of the month or year awards, and bonuses based on green performance. As a result, this encourages positive attitudes and leads to higher levels of interest in both their designated roles and additional environment-related tasks. Moreover, employees are likely to share positive experiences and opinions about the company’s practices, enhancing the firm’s social acceptance.

Policymakers should contemplate establishing favorable legislative and regulatory structures that encourage the use of GHRM and GSCM practices. Offering financial support for environment-friendly projects, setting unambiguous ecological criteria, and enabling easy availability of eco-friendly technologies can assist businesses in developing nations, such as Pakistan, in overcoming initial obstacles and achieving long-term sustainability advantages. Research has identified various elements that influence GSCM, such as legal and regulatory frameworks and customer expectations [121]. The study by Zaid, Jaaron, and Bon [111] highlighted GHRM as a significant yet underexplored factor driving GSCM. These insights can help companies understand how to use GHRM strategies to improve GSCM practices. Moreover, it is essential to explore how the integration of GHRM with GSCM can yield competitive benefits and lead to improved environmental performance. The results of this research may motivate managers to adopt GHRM strategies to address environmental concerns across both upstream and downstream segments of the supply chain. Furthermore, previous studies have highlighted various organizational practices aimed at enhancing firms’ environmental performance, such as the clear definition of environmental policies or designing processes to minimize energy and natural resource use during operations [122]. By establishing a definitive link between GHRM and firms’ TBL performance, this study presents managers with alternative methods beyond traditional HR practices for reducing costs, improving the environmental impact, and increasing societal welfare, resulting in an enhanced sustainable performance of the firm in the long run.

5. Conclusions and Limitations

This study has unveiled the synergistic potential of combining GHRM and GSCM strategies to improve corporate sustainability. By conceptualizing the interconnectedness of these two realms, the study sheds light on a comprehensive framework that firms can employ to cultivate a holistic and sustainable environment. Through the lenses of ROT and DCT theories, we posit that firms create dynamic capabilities by hiring environmentally conscious personnel, who will then orchestrate resources to enhance the social, environmental, and economic performance of firms. The introduction of EO as a moderator offers new insights on how entrepreneurial traits influence the efficacy of green initiatives. The paper emphasizes the significance of empirical validation in substantiating key theoretical assertions and provides a structured framework for future research into these constructs. The TBL approach to performance emphasizes the imperative for contemporary firms to achieve a harmonious equilibrium between their economic profitability, environmental sustainability, and social responsibility. This synergy underscores the necessity for firms to adopt an integrated approach to green management practices and maximize their impact on sustainability.

The study provided in this paper, although providing valuable insights, is constrained by several limitations that should be acknowledged and addressed in future research endeavors. Firstly, the study has explored the literature and requires empirical evidence to prove the results of the proposed conceptual model. Secondly, the choice to exclusively utilize EO as the sole moderating variable may inadvertently disregard other potential moderating factors that could hold significance within the scope of the research, e.g., digital orientation. Similarly, relying solely on GSCM as the mediator may not fully capture the complex nature of GHRM practices, and more mediating mechanisms, like organizational learning, may play a role in affecting the relationship between GHRM and TBL performance. Additionally, other functional areas, especially the greenness of marketing practices, can also provide insights to fully understand how to improve a firm’s overall sustainable performance.