Green Human Resource Management and Green Psychological Climate: A Scoping Review Through the AMO Framework

Abstract

The increasing emphasis on environmental sustainability in organizations has underscored the need to understand how human resource practices shape employee environmental behaviors and perceptions. This scoping review examines the relationship between Green Human Resource Management (GHRM) practices and Green Psychological Climate (GPC), analyzing their combined impact on organizational environmental outcomes through the Abilities–Motivation–Opportunities (AMO) framework. Following PRISMA-P guidelines, 16 empirical studies published between 2017 and 2024 were systematically reviewed. Findings reveal strong positive associations between GHRM and GPC, with green pay and rewards, performance management, and training emerging as key drivers. GPC acts as a critical mediating mechanism, facilitating the translation of GHRM initiatives into enhanced environmental performance and voluntary green behaviors. The effectiveness of these relationships is influenced by organizational factors (e.g., ethical leadership, green culture) and individual characteristics (e.g., environmental sensitivity, age). Through the AMO lens, the results suggest that an integrated GHRM system that enhances employees’ abilities, motivation, and opportunities creates synergistic effects, fostering a sustainability-oriented climate and reinforcing pro-environmental behaviors. These findings contribute to the theoretical understanding of sustainability-oriented HRM while offering practical insights for organizations seeking to align human resource practices with environmental objectives.

1. Introduction

Environmental sustainability is increasingly recognized as a priority for organizations, driven by intensifying environmental challenges and rising stakeholder pressures [1]. As Zacher et al. [2] highlight, the environmental impact of organizations extends beyond operational processes to include organizational culture, employee behavior, and Human Resource (HR) practices. This evolving perspective underscores the need for comprehensive sustainability frameworks tailored to organizational contexts.

Within the field of work and organizational psychology, research has explored the intersection between human resource management (HRM) and environmental sustainability, leading to the development of the Green Human Resource Management (GHRM) and Green Psychological Climate (GPC) frameworks. These approaches align sustainability objectives with HR strategies, fostering environmentally responsible workplace cultures. Jiménez-Sánchez et al. [3] argue that integrating environmental considerations into HRM strengthens an organization’s commitment to sustainability, motivating employees to adopt greener workplace behaviors. Similarly, Tahir et al. [4] highlight that environmentally oriented HR practices enhance employee engagement with sustainability initiatives, contributing to improved organizational environmental performance.

GHRM integrates environmental management into HR functions [5,6], encompassing recruitment [7], training [8], performance evaluation [9], and reward systems [10] that align with sustainability objectives. In parallel, GPC captures employees’ shared perceptions of their organization’s environmental policies, practices, and procedures, shaping their engagement in pro-environmental behaviors [11]. The literature suggests that the psychological climate cultivated by GHRM practices and leadership styles significantly influences employees’ interpretation of and response to environmental initiatives. Robertson and Barling [12] emphasize that green leadership fosters GPC by strengthening employees’ environmental passion, while Du and Yan [13] highlight the role of a supportive organizational culture in enhancing GPC, encouraging proactive employee engagement in environmental matters.

The relationship between GHRM and GPC reveals a complex interplay between organizational practices and employee perceptions. Hameed et al. [14] suggest that well-designed GHRM initiatives cultivate GPC by establishing a workplace culture that aligns with sustainability objectives, thereby fostering pro-environmental behaviors. Likewise, Obeng [15] argues that GPC, shaped through GHRM practices, influences employees’ adoption of green behaviors. However, while these connections have been explored in individual studies, a comprehensive synthesis assessing the strength of their relationship and its broader implications remains absent in the literature.

To better understand how GHRM influences GPC, the Abilities–Motivation–Opportunities (AMO) framework provides a valuable theoretical foundation. Initially conceptualized by Appelbaum et al. [16] and later refined by Beltrán-Martín and Bou-Llusar [17], the AMO framework posits that employee performance and workplace behavior emerge from the interaction of three components: Abilities, Motivation, and Opportunities. Within the context of environmental sustainability, these dimensions explain how GHRM practices shape employee attitudes and behaviors toward sustainability initiatives. Abilities refer to the development of employees’ knowledge and skills through green training programs, equipping them with the necessary competencies to engage in sustainable practices. Motivation reflects the role of incentives, leadership, and cultural factors that drive employees’ commitment to environmental goals. Opportunities encompass the structural and organizational conditions that enable employees to participate in pro-environmental behaviors, such as workplace policies and initiatives that encourage sustainable actions. Through this framework, GHRM fosters a green psychological climate by enhancing employees’ environmental capabilities, reinforcing their commitment to sustainability, and creating conditions that facilitate their involvement in green initiatives.

Empirical studies demonstrate how the AMO framework helps explain the effectiveness of GHRM practices. Iftikar et al. [18] found that GHRM fosters pro-environmental behavior by developing employee abilities, strengthening motivation, and providing opportunities for engagement, with green entrepreneurship mediating and green self-efficacy moderating this relationship. Similarly, Bos-Nehles et al. [19] showed that GHRM enhances innovative performance by structuring HR practices around ability development, motivation-building strategies, and opportunity-driven mechanisms, with employee satisfaction and individual green values serving as mediating factors. These findings reinforce the relevance of the AMO framework in explaining how GHRM creates a psychological climate that encourages employees to adopt sustainable behaviors.

Despite the increasing attention to GHRM and GPC, key gaps persist in the literature. First, while several studies suggest a positive association between these constructs, a review consolidating empirical findings is lacking, leaving uncertainty about the strength and consistency of this relationship across different organizational contexts. Second, prior research has often examined GHRM and GPC in isolation, rather than exploring their interplay through integrative frameworks. The AMO framework offers a structured lens to explain these dynamics, yet empirical studies explicitly linking GHRM to GPC within this model are still limited. Finally, while GHRM’s role in fostering pro-environmental behaviors has been widely acknowledged, limited attention has been given to the mediating and moderating mechanisms that shape the effectiveness of these practices in driving sustainable organizational outcomes.

This study addresses these gaps by systematically analyzing empirical research on GHRM and GPC, adopting the AMO framework to structure an understanding of how GHRM practices cultivate sustainability-oriented workplace climates. By integrating insights from multiple disciplines, this review not only synthesizes existing knowledge but also identifies key mechanisms and contextual factors that enhance the effectiveness of GHRM in fostering a green psychological climate.

To achieve these goals, this study pursues three key research objectives:

• Analyze the direct relationship between GHRM practices and GPC, evaluating their impact on employee green behaviors, organizational performance, and sustainability outcomes.
• Examine the indirect effects of the GHRM–GPC relationship, identifying key mediating and moderating mechanisms that shape its effectiveness.
• Investigate how GHRM practices, when structured through the AMO framework, contribute to organizational environmental sustainability by enhancing employee abilities, motivation, and opportunities.

More broadly, this study aims to develop an integrated theoretical framework that captures the dynamic interplay between GHRM, GPC, and sustainability-oriented organizational outcomes.

2. Materials and Methods

Following the principles of PRISMA-P [20], a scoping literature review was conducted to analyze the relationship between GHRM practices and GPC. This review focuses on understanding how GHRM practices influence the development of GPC and on examining their combined impact on organizational outcomes.

2.1. Search Strategy

From October to November 2024, a comprehensive literature search was conducted in accordance with the Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards (RAMSESES) guidelines for systematic reviews [21]. These guidelines highlight the importance of a comprehensive, objective, and reproducible search process across various sources to identify eligible studies. Scientific databases, including Web of Science, Scopus, and PubMed, were systematically searched for relevant studies. The search strategy involved screening titles, abstracts, and keywords using Boolean operators. The search string used for Scopus was as follows: (“green human resource management” OR “GHRM” OR “green HRM” OR “green human resource*” OR “sustainable human resource* management” OR “sustainable human resource*”) AND (“green psychological climate” OR “environmental psychological climate” OR “green climate” OR “sustainability climate”). This search string was adapted accordingly for Scopus, Web of Science, and PubMed to align with their specific indexing structures and search functionalities. The final search was conducted in November 2024.

2.2. Eligibility Criteria

Each study was required to meet the following inclusion criteria to be incorporated in the scoping review: (1) articles that examine the relationship between GHRM practices and GPC, whether through direct or indirect relationships; (2) peer-reviewed scientific journal articles and book chapters, to ensure academic rigor and quality of the research; (3) empirical studies that provide evidence-based findings; (4) studies conducted in organizational settings, as the focus is on workplace environments; (5) studies that include at least one component of the AMO framework, specifically the following: abilities (training, development, skills, competencies, learning, knowledge), motivation (rewards, incentives, commitment, engagement, recognition), or opportunities (participation, empowerment, involvement, autonomy, decision-making).

By applying these criteria, the following articles were excluded from the scoping review: (1) non-peer-reviewed publications that do not meet academic quality standards; (2) studies that do not explicitly address the relationship between GHRM and GPC; (3) articles focusing exclusively on environmental management without incorporating HR practices; (4) studies that do not specifically examine GHRM or GPC; (5) systematic, scoping, narrative, and theoretical reviews, as the focus is on empirical research; (6) studies conducted outside organizational settings; (7) research that does not incorporate any component of the AMO model in its analysis of GHRM practices. These exclusion criteria ensure that this review maintains its focus on high-quality, relevant studies that align with our research objectives regarding the relationship between GHRM practices and GPC within organizational contexts.

2.3. Data Extraction, Analysis, and Synthesis

The initial search in the databases yielded 77 articles. A spreadsheet was used to collect these articles’ titles, abstracts, and references during the initial screening. After removing 38 duplicates, 39 articles remained for further screening. The screening and selection process was primarily conducted by the first author, with consultation from co-authors on specific cases where classification criteria needed clarification. During this screening phase, articles were excluded (n = 12) for the following specific reasons: not focusing on the relationship between GHRM and GPC (n = 8): these articles mentioned both concepts but did not analyze their relationship, for example, articles focusing only on describing GHRM practices without examining their impact on GPC. Studies not focusing on GHRM practices and/or GPC (n = 2): these articles discussed general environmental management without specific reference to GHRM practices or GPC. Non-peer-reviewed publications (n = 1): this included a master’s thesis. Studies outside organizational context (n = 1): this included focusing on individual environmental behaviors in general. This initial screening resulted in 27 articles that met the inclusion criteria.

Subsequently, in the full-text screening phase, additional articles were excluded (n = 11) for the following reasons: studies where GPC was analyzed only as a moderator or mediator without examining GHRM’s direct influence (n = 5): these papers used GPC as an intermediate variable but did not investigate the direct relationship between GHRM and GPC; studies focused on alternative antecedents (n = 2): one paper examined ethical leadership’s influence rather than GHRM, and another explored how green behavior influences green creativity through GPC as a mediator; studies that did not directly examine the GHRM–GPC relationship (n = 3): these included papers that analyzed GHRM’s influence on pro-environmental behavior through other mechanisms rather than through GPC. One article could not be accessed in full text despite attempts to contact the authors.

This screening process resulted in a final total of 16 articles. In cases of uncertainty about an article’s eligibility, all authors were consulted to reach a consensus through discussion. The first author maintained detailed documentation of the selection decisions and rationale throughout the process to ensure consistency in the application of inclusion/exclusion criteria. Figure 1 outlines the article selection process.

Following the paper selection phase, the results were systematically analyzed and categorized to ensure a comprehensive understanding of the relationship between GHRM practices and GPC. The process began with extracting relevant information from the selected studies, focusing on three main aspects: (1) the direct relationships between GHRM and GPC, and their respective effects on behavior, performance, and organizational outcomes, (2) the indirect effects between these constructs, and (3) the presence and implementation of AMO framework components in GHRM practices.

The extracted data were then analyzed to identify patterns aligned with our research objectives. The initial categorizations were reviewed and refined through multiple iterations to ensure accurate classification and to minimize overlap. This systematic organization enabled the development of a comprehensive framework that captures the dynamic relationships between GHRM practices, GPC, and organizational outcomes.

2.4. Risk of Bias and Quality Assessment

The methodological quality and risk of bias were assessed based on the QUADAS-2 framework [22] across four domains. Participant selection showed 75% low risk of bias, with the main concerns being non-probability sampling. The index test domain demonstrated strong methodological rigor (94% low risk), although most studies relied on self-reported measures which could introduce common method bias in other fields. However, in organizational psychology research, this is a well-established approach when assessing psychological constructs such as perceptions, attitudes, and experiences. Most studies implemented specific methodological strategies to mitigate potential biases, including the use of validated scales, statistical controls for common method variance (i.e., Harman’s single-factor test), and comprehensive validation procedures such as confirmatory factor analyses and construct reliability tests. In the reference standard domain, 88% showed low risk as all participants within each study completed identical standardized questionnaires using consistent measurement approaches. Flow and timing demonstrated robust quality (94% low risk) through clear documentation of data collection and consistent measure application.

3. Results

3.1. Characteristics of the Studies

The scoping review included 16 empirical studies published between 2017 and 2024, with the majority (81.25%) published in the last three years (2021–2024).

Table 1. Overview of the included studies, including characteristics, AMO components, and key relationships between GHRM, GPC, and organizational outcomes.

Authors/Year	Organizational Sector	Research Objectives	Sample Characteristics	GHMR Practices and AMO Framework	GHRM > GPC	GHRM and GPC > Behavior and Performance	GHRM and GPC > Organizational Outcomes
1. Akbar et al. [23]	Higher education	To investigate the influence of GHRM practices on Sustainable University Performance (SUP) through the GPC mediation of academic and non-academic staff	N = 382 employees (lecturers: 57.07%, educational staff: 42.93%). Gender: 52.88% female, 47.12% male. Age: 59.95% between 41–50 years	Abilities (A): Employee training and development Motivation (M): Performance management Green rewards and compensation Outcomes (O): Employee empowerment Environmental protection integration (based on Shah [24], Cherian and Jacob [25], Jabbour and Santos [26], Mishra et al. [27], Opatha and Arulrajah [28], Renwick et al. [29,30])	Strong positive relationship	GHRM has a weak positive effect on SUP, while GPC has a very strong positive effect on SUP	N/A
2. Baydeniz and Kart [31]	Hospitality	To analyze how GHRM shapes employee green behavior through its effects on GPC, Green Culture (GC), and Environmental Consciousness (EC)	N = 432 hotel managers. Gender: 78.2% male, 21.8% female. Age distribution: 18–25 years (31.0%), 26–35 years (12.3%), 36–45 years (31.5%), 46–60 years (15.5%), 61+ (9.7%)	A: Green training Use of employees with green education M: Green goals design for employees Rewards for green behaviors Consideration of workplace green behaviors in promotions (based on Dumont et al. [32])	Strong positive relationship	GPC shows a non-significant effect with Green Behavioral Intentions (GBI), while GHRM has a strong positive effect on GBI. GHRM has a moderate positive effect on Employee Green Behavior (EGB)	N/A
3. Chen et al. [33]	Oil and mining	To examine how employees’ perceived GHRM influences workplace Green Behaviors (GB) through cognitive and affective routes	N = 358 participants. Gender: 57.82% male, 42.18% female. Age distribution: <25 years (19.83%), 26–35 years (22.90%), 36–45 years (22.35%), >46 years (34.92%)	A: Green recruitment and selection Green training M: Green performance management Green pay and reward O: Green involvement (based on Tang et al. [34])	Weak positive relationship	GHRM has a strong positive effect on GB. GHRM demonstrates a moderate positive effect on green creativity	GHRM has a strong positive effect on Harmonious Environmental Passion (HEP)
4. Dumont et al. [32]	Manufacturing	To test the link between GHRM and workplace GB, integrating effects of GPC and Individual Green Values (IGV)	N = 388 employees from a Chinese subsidiary of an Australian multinational enterprise. Gender: 57.5% female, 42.5% male. Mean age: 36.30 years (SD = 8.35). Mean job tenure: 6.22 years (SD = 4.3)	A: Green training to promote values Green training for knowledge and skills M: Setting green goals for employees Green behavior in performance appraisals Green behavior linked to rewards/compensation Green behavior in promotion decisions	Moderate positive relationship	GHRM has a moderate positive effect on In-role Green Behavior (IRGB) and a weak positive effect on Extra-role Green Behavior (ERGB). GPC shows a weak positive effect on IRGB and a moderate positive effect on ERGB	N/A
5. Farrukh et al. [35]	Hospitality	To investigate the influence of team-level GHRM (TGHRM) on team-level green creative behavior (TGCB) through team-level GPC (TGPC)	N = 177 teams. Gender: 51.6% male, 48.4% female. Age distribution: 23–32 years (41.8%), 33–42 years (23.4%), >43 years (18.7%). Job tenure: <5 years (44.2%), 5–10 years (30.9%), 10–20 years (15.1%), >20 years (9.8%)	A: Green recruitment and selection Green training M: Green performance management Green pay and reward Green involvement (based on Dumont et al. [32])	Strong positive relationship between TGHRM and TGPC	Both TGHRM and TGPC show a weak positive effect on TGCB	N/A
6. Gupta and Kaur [36]	IT	To evaluate the mediating role of GPC between GHRM practices and EGB through a multi-level approach	N = 522 (77 HR managers and 445 employees). Gender: 61% male, 39% female. Mean age: 43 years. Mean job tenure: 5.5 years	A: Green recruitment and selection Green training and development M: Green performance management Green reward and compensation O: Green employee empowerment	Strong positive relationship	GHRM shows a weak positive effect on EGB, while GPC shows a moderate positive effect on EGB	N/A
7. Kim [37]	Hospitality	To determine how AMO-applied GHRM practices influence employees’ Green Organizational Citizen Behavior (GOCB) through GPC and Green Awareness (GA)	N = 379 participants. Gender: 47.7% male, 52.4% female. Age distribution: 20–29 years (16.6%), 30–40 years (33.7%), 40–49 years (30.6%), 50–59 years (14.5%), 60+ years (4.5%)	A: Training, knowledge management M: Performance indicators, targets, goals O: Communication channels, employee involvement (based on Tang et al. [34])	Strong positive relationship	GHRM demonstrates a strong positive effect on GOCB, while GPC shows a weak positive effect on GOCB	GHRM shows a very strong positive effect on GA
8. Li et al. [38]	Healthcare	To examine the effect of GHRM on environmental performance through GPC and Pro-Environmental Behaviors (PEB)	N = 110 HR professionals and health officers	A: Green hiring Green training and development M: Green performance management and compensation (based on Tang et al. [34], Yusoff et al. [39])	Very strong positive relationship	GPC shows a strong positive effect on PEB	N/A
9a. Mo et al. [40]	Tourism/Hospitality	To examine how GHRM and Environmentally Specific Transformational Leadership (ESTL) jointly shape team behavior through different TGPC processes in a Chinese tourism context	N = 539 employees (123 work groups, 30 companies). Gender: 54% male, 46% female. Mean age: 39.97 years (SD = 4.43). Mean job tenure: 5.55 years (SD = 1.37)	A: Green training to promote green values A: Training to develop green knowledge and skills M: Setting green goals for employees Green performance appraisals Green rewards and compensation Green promotion criteria (based on Dumont et al. [32])	Weak positive relationship	GHRM demonstrates a weak positive effect on Team Pro-Environmental Behavior (TPEB)	Team green priority climate shows a very strong positive effect on Team Green Behavior (TGB) and TGPC also shows a strong positive effect on TGB
9b. Mo et al. [40]	Tourism/Hospitality	To replicate and extend Study 1 findings in US tourism context using different measures of team green behavior, team collective Organizational Citizenship Behavior for the Environment (TOCBE)	N = 306 employees (70 work groups). Gender: 52% male, 48% female Mean age: 28.77 years (SD = 3.03). Mean job tenure: 4.69 years (SD = 1.87)	A: Green training to promote green values Training to develop green knowledge and skills M: Setting green goals for employees Green performance appraisals Green rewards and compensation Green promotion criteria (based on Dumont et al. [32])	Moderate positive relationship	GHRM has a weak positive effect on TOCBE	TGPC demonstrates a weak positive effect on TGB, while TGPC shows a stronger positive effect on TGB
10. Muthuswamy [41]	Food packaging	To investigate the impact of GHRM’s on workplace GB and its relationship with GPC	N = 411 employees. Gender: 61.7% female, 38.3% male. Mean age: 31 years (SD = 7.91). Mean job tenure: 7.32 years (SD = 5.1)	A: Green recruitment and selection Environmental training and development M: Green performance management Green compensation and rewards O: Employee participation in sustainability initiatives (based on Dumont et al. [32])	Strong positive correlation	GHRM demonstrate a moderate positive effect on environmental sustainability outcomes. GHRM show a moderate positive effect on sustainability. Employee participation (EP) reveals a weak positive effect on sustainability initiatives	Employee attitudes show a strong positive correlation with training and development (TD), while EP demonstrates a moderate positive correlation. Also, GHRM practices show a moderate positive correlation with TD
11. Naz et al. [42]	Manufacturing	To examine how GHRM practices heighten Environmental Performance (EP) via employees’ GPC and PEB	N = 374 employees. Gender: 55.3% male, 44.7% female. Age distribution: 67.1% between 26–45 years	A: Green hiring Green training and involvement M: Green performance management and compensation (based on Mousa and Othman [43], Tang et al. [34], Yusoff et al. [39])	Moderate positive relationship	GPC shows a strong positive effect on PEB PEB reveals a moderate positive effect on EP	GHRM shows a weak positive effect on Employee participation
12. Sabokro et al. [44]	Industrial sector	To evaluate the influence of GHRM on EGB via the mediating roles of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and GPC	N = 384 HR managers and employees	A: Green training provision Green knowledge and skills development M: Green behavior rewards Green behavior promotion consideration Green goals designation (based on Dumont et al. [32])	Moderate positive relationship	GHRM demonstrates a weak positive effect on GB, while GPC shows a moderate positive effect	GHRM shows a moderate positive effect on CSR
13. Shah et al. [45]	Various sectors	To investigate the impact of GHRM mediating through GPC and Green Organizational Culture (GOC) for better environmental efficacy	N = 480 participants. Gender: 53% male, 47% female. Mean age: 33 years	A: Green competence development M: Green motivation enhancing practices O: Green involvement practices	Very strong positive relationship	GPC demonstrates a moderate positive effect on Sustainable Environmental Efficiency (SEF)	GHRM shows a very strong positive effect on GOC
14. Uslu et al. [46]	Hospitality	To determine how GHRM practices influence employees’ perceptions regarding organizational commitments to GPC and environmentally responsible behavior	N = 425 employees. Gender: 62.1% male, 37.9% female. Age: 31% between 18–25 years. Job tenure: 53.7% have 1–5 years of experience	A: Green recruitment and selection Green training M: Green performance management Green pay and rewards (based on Jabbour [47])	Green training demonstrates a weak positive effect on GPC, while Green Performance Management (GPM) shows a moderate positive effect. Green pay and rewards show a strong positive effect on GPC. Green recruitment and selection shows no significant effect on GPC	GPC demonstrates a strong positive relationship on EGB	N/A
15. Younis and Hussain [48]	Healthcare	To explore the impact of GHRM on EP and assess the mediating effect of GPC	N = 150 strategic hospital managers. Gender: 94% men, 56% women. Job tenure: 96% have 1–10 years of experience.	A: Green training to promote values Green training for knowledge and skills M: Setting green goals for employees Green behavior in performance appraisals Green behavior linked to rewards/compensation Green behavior in promotion decisions (based on Dumont et al. [32])	Moderate positive relationship	GHRM shows a moderate positive effect on EP, while GPC demonstrates a strong positive effect	N/A
16. Zafar and Suseno [49]	Textile	To examine a sequential mediation process linking GHRM practices and employees’ Voluntary Pro-Environmental Behavior (VPEB), considering the aspects of GPC and Organizational Pride (OP)	N = 568 (459 employees and 109 managers). Gender: 90% male, 10% female. Job tenure employees: 79% 1–5 years, 21% 6–10 years. Job tenure managers: 64% 6–10 years.	A: Recruitment and selection Training to promote values Training for knowledge and skills M: Behavior in performance appraisals Behavior linked to rewards and compensation Behavior in promotion decisions O: Encouraging green habits and practices (based on Kim et al. [50])	Strong positive relationship	GHRM demonstrates a weak positive effect on VPEB, while GPC exhibits a strong positive effect	GHRM shows a strong positive effect on OP, and GPC demonstrates a moderate positive effect.

Note. Bold text indicates significant relationships between variables.

shows an overview of the methodological designs, analytical approaches, organizational sectors, and sample characteristics of these studies, offering a narrative summary of their key features. For a detailed statistical overview of results across all included studies, see Supplementary Table S1, which provides detailed methodological characteristics and statistical outcomes.

Regarding organizational sectors, the studies covered diverse sectors. The hospitality sector was the most represented (25%), followed by manufacturing and healthcare (12.5% each). Other sectors included higher education, oil and mining, Information Technology (IT), food packaging, and textile industries (6.25% each). One study (6.25%) examined various sectors simultaneously. This diversity in organizational contexts provides a comprehensive understanding of GHRM practices and GPC across different industry settings.

The geographical distribution of the studies shows a predominant concentration in Asian countries, which account for 93.75% analyzed research. Within this distribution, China represents the highest proportion of studies (31.25%), followed by Pakistan (25%). The remaining Asian studies are distributed across Indonesia, India, Iran, South Korea, and Turkey, with each country representing 6.25%. Only one study, representing 6.25% of the total, was conducted in the United States. This pronounced geographical concentration highlights both the growing importance of environmental management in Asian economies and a significant gap in research from Western contexts.

Sample characteristics varied considerably across studies. Sample sizes ranged from 110 to 539 participants, with most studies collecting data from both managerial and non-managerial employees. The gender distribution generally showed a male predominance ranging from 47.12% to 94% and most participants were between 25–50 years old. Some studies focused on specific populations, such as hotel managers (26.7%), HR professionals (13.3%), or academic staff (6.7%), while others included diverse employee categories (53.3%).

The studies examined various GHRM practices, with green training and development appearing as the most frequently implemented practice (93.75%), followed by green performance management and green rewards/compensation systems (87.5% each). Green recruitment and selection were reported in 50% of studies, while employee involvement and empowerment in 43.75%. The less frequently observed practices included green goal setting for employees, the use of employees with green education, and the consideration of green behaviors in promotion decisions.

All studies employed a cross-sectional design, with various analytical methods. The predominant analytical approach was Partial Least Squares–Structural Equation Modeling (PLS–SEM), used in 56.25% of the studies, followed by traditional Structural Equation Modeling (SEM; 18.75%). Other analytical methods included multi-level path analysis (6.25%), correlation analysis (6.25%), and combined PLS–SEM with Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA; 6.25%). Most of the studies (87.5%) investigated both direct and mediating relationships, while a small portion (12.5%) focused only on direct relationships.

3.2. Relationship Between GHRM and GPC

To address the first research objective of analyzing the direct relationship between GHRM practices and GPC, our study identified three main patterns across the 16 included articles (See Table 1): the direct link between GHRM and GPC, their impact on behavior and performance, and their influence on broader organizational outcomes. The results consistently highlight a strong, positive relationship between GHRM practices and GPC, supported by structural equation modeling (path coefficients, β) and Pearson correlation coefficients (r).

The strengths of these relationships varied across studies. The analysis revealed that the effects ranged from moderate (β = 0.22*) to very strong (β = 0.89***), with most relationships falling in the moderate to high range. Particularly strong connections between GHRM practices and GPC were found in several studies (β = 0.80*** and β = 0.89***). The high statistical reliability of these findings (t-values above 20) further indicates that GHRM practices have substantial influence on developing GPC in organizational settings.

Although limited, additional correlation analyses supported this relationship between GHRM and GPC, with correlations ranging from r = 0.14** to r = 0.66*, as reported in the original studies. This variation in statistical significance levels despite the magnitude of correlations might be related to differences in sample sizes across studies, but they nevertheless provide complementary evidence for this connection.

When examining specific GHRM components, green pay and rewards showed the strongest effect (β = 0.49***) followed by Green Performance Management (β = 0.35***). While green training demonstrated a smaller but still significant relationship (β = 0.16*), green recruitment and selection showed no significant relationship. These findings suggest that organizations should prioritize certain GHRM practices over others when aiming to develop a strong GPC.

These positive relationships remained significant at both individual and team levels. At the individual level, GHRM had a strong positive influence on various environmental behaviors, with the strongest relationship observed for general workplace green behavior (β = 0.45*), followed by in-role green behavior (β = 0.31***) and voluntary environmental initiatives (β = 0.20*). Similarly, GPC showed robust associations with environmental behaviors, particularly influencing employees’ engagement in pro-environmental actions (β = 0.72*** and β = 0.56*) and their demonstration of environmentally responsible behavior (β = 0.51***).

At the team level, analyses revealed moderate yet consistent effects (β = 0.515**), with team GHRM showing a significant relationship with team GPC (β = 0.50***) and team green creative behavior (β = 0.25***), emphasizing the broad effectiveness of GHRM practices in fostering collective environmental behaviors.

Beyond individual and team-level effects, the impact of GHRM and GPC extended to broader organizational outcomes. Both demonstrated substantial positive effects on environmental performance, with GPC exhibiting a particularly strong influence (β = 0.54***) compared to GHRM (β = 0.36***). Similar patterns emerged for sustainable performance, where GPC demonstrated an especially strong relationship (β = 0.89***). Notably, GHRM practices were strongly linked to the development of a green organizational culture and increased environmental awareness (both β = 0.82***), while also enhancing organizational pride (β = 0.49**) and improving employee attitudes toward training (r = 0.72**).

These results highlight the strategic importance of developing both GHRM practices and GPC, as they contribute not only to environmental performance but also to broader organizational outcomes such as culture, pride, and employee development. These findings provide strong evidence for the first research objective, confirming a significant and consistent direct relationship between GHRM practices and GPC. They underscore the strategic role of GHRM in shaping organizational environmental perceptions and fostering collective employee commitment. This direct link serves as a key mechanism for translating environmental intentions into concrete organizational actions. Moreover, the consistent positive associations across diverse contexts reinforce GHRM’s potential as a strategic tool for building a proactive and environmentally conscious organizational culture.

3.3. Mediating Effects

The examination of indirect effects in the GHRM–GPC relationship, in line with the second research objective, revealed several complex pathways of influence. Our analysis identified mediating and moderating mechanisms across the reviewed studies, with

Table 2. Mediation and moderation effects with indirect effects.

Study	Mediators	Mediation and Indirect Effects	Moderating Effects
Akbar et al. [23]	GPC	GPC fully mediates with a strong effect the relationship between GHRM and sustainable performance	N/A
Baydeniz and Kart [31]	Green culture (GC) Environmental consciousness (EC) GPC	EC fully mediates with a strong effect the relationship between GHRM and Green Behavioral Intentions (GBI) GC weakly mediates the relationship between GHRM and GBI No significant mediation was found through GPC	Age moderates with a moderate effect the relationship between GPC and GBI Age does not moderate the relationships between EC and GBI or GC and GBI
Chen et al. [33]	GPC Harmonious Environmental Passion (HEP)	GPC weakly mediates the relationship between GHRM and Voluntary Green Behavior (VGB) HEP partially mediates with a moderate effect the relationship between GHRM and VGB HEP fully mediates with a strong effect the relationship between GHRM and Green Creativity No significant mediation through GPC was found in the relationship between GHRM and Green Creativity	N/A
Dumont et al. [32]	GPC	GPC weakly and partially mediates the relationship between GHRM and In-role Green Behavior (IRGB) GPC fully mediates with a strong effect the relationship between GHRM and Extra-role Green Behavior (ERGB).	Individual Green Values (IGV) weakly moderates the relationship between GPC and ERGB IGV does not moderate the relationship between GPC and IRGB IGV does not moderate the relationship between GHRM and IRGB IGV does not moderate the relationship between GHRM and ERGB
Farrukh et al. [35]	Team Green Psychological Climate (TGPC)	TGPC weakly and partially mediates the relationship between Team Green Creative Behavior (TGCB)	GC weakly moderates the relationship between TGHRM and TGCB GC weakly moderates the relationship between TGPC and TGCB Ethical Leadership (EL) weakly moderates the relationship between TGHRM and TGCB EL does not moderate the relationship between TGPC and TGCB
Gupta and Kaur [36]	GPC	GPC weakly and partially mediates the relationship between GHRM and Employee Green Behavior (EGB).	N/A
Kim [37]	GPC Green Awareness (GA) Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)	GA strongly and partially mediates the relationship between GHRM and Green Organizational Citizen Behavior (GOCB) GPC weakly and partially mediates the relationship between GHRM and GOCB GOCB partially mediates with a moderate effect the relationship between CSR and Green Performance Management (GPM)	N/A
Li et al. [38]	GPC	GPC strongly and partially mediates the relationship between GHRM and Pro-Environmental Behavior (PEB) No significant mediation through PGC in the relationship between PEB and Environmental Performance (EP)	IGV does not moderate the relationship between PEB and EP
Mo et al. [40]	Team Green Psychological Climate (TGPC)	Study 1: TGPC partially mediates with a moderate effect the relationship between TGHRM and TGCB Study 2: TGPC weakly mediates the relationship between TGHRM and Team Green Pro-Environmental Behavior (TGPEB)	Study 1: EL moderates with a moderate effect the relationship between TGHRM and TGCB Study 2: EL does not moderate the relationship between TGPC and TGPEB
Naz et al. [42]	GPC PEB	GPC weakly and partially mediates the relationship between GHRM and PEB GPC weakly and partially mediates the relationship between Corporate Environmental Strategy (CES) and PEB GPC weakly and partially mediates the relationship between PEB and EP	PEB weakly moderates the relationship between Environmental Knowledge (EK) and EP
Sabokro et al. [44]	GPC CSR	CSR weakly and partially mediates the relationship between GHRM and EGB GPC weakly and partially mediates the relationship between GHRM and EGB	N/A
Shah et al. [45]	GPC Green Organizational Culture (GOC)	GPC strongly and partially mediates the relationship between GHRM and Sustainable Environmental Efficiency (SEF) GOC strongly and partially mediates the relationship between GHRM and SEF	N/A
Uslu et al. [46]	GPC	GPC strongly and partially mediates the relationship between GHRM and EGB	Environmental Sensitivity (ES) weakly moderates the relationship between GPC and EGB, with the effect being stronger among individuals with high ES compared to those with low ES Altruism (ALT) weakly moderates the relationship between GPC and EGB, where employees with higher ALT show a stronger connection between GPC and EGB than those with lower ALT
Younis and Hussain [48]	GPC	GPC partially mediates with a moderate effect the relationship between GHRM and EP	Green Transformational Leadership (GTL) does not moderate the relationship between GHRM and GPC.
Zafar and Suseno [49]	GPC Organizational Pride (OP)	CSR weakly and partially mediates the relationship between GHRM and EGB GPC weakly and partially mediates the relationship between GHRM and EGB GPC weakly and partially mediates the relationship between GHRM and OP	N/A

Note. Bold text indicates significant relationships between variables.

presenting the mediation effects found in 15 of the 16 analyzed papers. A comprehensive statistical overview of these mediation effects, including methodological characteristics and outcomes, is available in Supplementary Materials Table S2. Notably, GPC emerged as the predominant mediating mechanism linking GHRM practices to organizational outcomes.

Data indicate significant variations in how GPC mediates different relationships. The strongest mediating effects through GPC manifested in organizational performance outcomes. GPC fully mediated the relationship between GHRM and sustainable performance (β = 0.71***), while also establishing strong mediation between GHRM and sustainable environmental efficiency (β = 0.35***). These findings indicate GPC’s role in translating GHRM practices into tangible sustainability outcomes. This suggests that organizations need a strong green climate to effectively transform their HR policies into measurable performance improvements.

At the individual level, GPC’s mediating effects varied by behavior type. In-role green behaviors involve actions directly aligned with formal job responsibilities, such as adhering to environmental procedures and policies. These behaviors are typically expected as part of employees’ duties and are reinforced through organizational norms and job descriptions [51]. GPC exhibited weak partial mediation for in-role green behaviors (β = 0.09*), suggesting that while a green psychological climate can influence these behaviors, other structural or extrinsic factors may also play a role.

In contrast, extra-role green behaviors—often conceptualized as a form of Organizational Citizenship Behavior—are discretionary actions that extend beyond formal job requirements, including assisting colleagues in green initiatives, leading voluntary environmental projects, and fostering a sustainability-oriented workplace culture. These behaviors stem from employees’ intrinsic motivation and proactive engagement with sustainability efforts [52]. GPC fully mediated this relationship (β = 0.12***), reinforcing the idea that a strong green psychological climate plays a key role in encouraging employees to voluntarily contribute to environmental initiatives.

This pattern extended to other voluntary environmental behaviors, with GPC mediating both voluntary green behavior (β = 0.02*) and pro-environmental behavior (β = 0.15*). These findings indicate that a green psychological climate is particularly effective in motivating employees to go beyond their required duties in sustainability-related activities, further supporting the AMO framework’s emphasis on ability, motivation, and opportunity.

Team-level analyses provided consistent evidence of GPC’s mediating role, with Team GPC functioning as a significant mediator between team-level GHRM and team green creative behavior (β = 0.31**; β = 0.22*). These findings demonstrate that creating a shared environmental understanding enhances collective creativity and innovation in sustainability efforts.

Several alternative mediating mechanisms complemented GPC’s effects. Harmonious environmental passion functioned as a significant partial mediator between GHRM and voluntary green behavior (β = 0.08*), while displaying full mediation for green creativity (β = 0.19***). Green organizational culture established strong partial mediation between GHRM and sustainable environmental efficiency (β = 0.42***), and environmental consciousness demonstrated full mediation effects on green behavioral intentions (β = 0.21***). This multi-faceted mediation suggests that organizations benefit from cultivating multiple pathways to enhance environmental performance.

Complex sequential mediation patterns also emerged, with GPC operating alongside other mediators. The combination of GPC and organizational pride mediated the GHRM–behavior relationship (β = 0.035*), while corporate environmental strategy and GPC jointly influenced pro-environmental behavior through weak partial mediation (β = 0.22*). However, not all mediation pathways proved significant, as evidenced in the GHRM → GPC → green creativity path (β = 0.01) and the GHRM → GPC → green behavioral intentions → employee green behavior sequence (β = 0.01). These mixed results highlight the importance of carefully selecting and combining environmental initiatives for maximum effectiveness.

3.4. Moderating Effects

Continuing with the second research objective of examining indirect effects in the GHRM–GPC relationship, our analysis identified several significant moderating mechanisms across eight of the sixteen studies reviewed (See Table 2). These moderation effects emerged at multiple levels, including individual characteristics, leadership styles, and organizational factors. A detailed statistical summary of these effects, along with methodological characteristics and outcomes, is available in Supplementary Materials Table S2.

Individual characteristics showed varying degrees of influence. Age moderated the relationship between GPC and green behavioral intentions with medium strength (β = 0.128**), while environmental sensitivity significantly moderated the GPC–employee green behavior relationship (β = 0.10*). The latter relationship was notably stronger when environmental sensitivity was high (β = 0.44*) compared to when it had low levels (β = 0.30*). These findings suggest that personal characteristics, particularly age and environmental awareness, play a crucial role in determining how effectively environmental initiatives are adopted across the workforce.

Organizational context factors demonstrated consistent moderating effects. Ethical leadership showed a medium-strength moderating effect (β = 0.19**) on the relationship between team GHRM and team green creative behavior. Green culture similarly moderated both GHRM–green creative behavior (β = 0.28*) and GPC–green creative behavior relationships (β = 0.17*). These results demonstrate that organizational support systems significantly enhance the effectiveness of environmental initiatives, particularly in fostering creative environmental solutions.

Individual pro-social tendencies also influenced environmental outcomes. Altruism emerged as a significant though weak moderator (β = 0.06*) of the GPC–employee green behavior relationship, with stronger effects at high levels of altruism (β = 0.21*) compared to low levels (β = 0.11*). This pattern reveals that employees with stronger pro-social tendencies are more likely to engage in environmental initiatives, suggesting the importance of considering individual values in environmental program design.

Not all hypothesized moderating effects were supported by the evidence. Individual green values showed no significant moderation of GHRM’s relationship with either in-role or extra-role green behaviors (β = 0.03 and β = 0.04, respectively). Green transformational leadership failed to moderate the GHRM–GPC relationship (β = −0.020), and environmental knowledge showed no significant moderation between pro-environmental behavior and environmental performance (β = 0.05). These non-significant findings highlight that not all theoretically promising factors enhance environmental initiatives, emphasizing the need for the careful selection of intervention strategies.

The analysis of mediation and moderation effects provides a comprehensive understanding of the indirect mechanisms linking GHRM practices to organizational outcomes, addressing the second research objective. GPC emerged as a key mediating factor, particularly in translating GHRM into enhanced organizational performance and extra-role behaviors, while additional mediators such as environmental passion and organizational culture also played a role. The moderating effects identified highlight the significant influence of both individual characteristics (e.g., age, environmental sensitivity) and organizational factors (e.g., ethical leadership, green culture) in shaping these relationships. However, the non-significant findings highlight that not all theoretically relevant variables enhance environmental initiatives, emphasizing the importance of targeted intervention strategies.

3.5. AMO Framework Analysis

To address our third research objective, we employed the AMO framework, which provides a comprehensive lens for analyzing the impact of GHRM practices on employees’ behaviors and organizational climate. The literature suggests that combining ability, motivation, and opportunity-enhancing practices generates synergistic effects, strengthening organizational sustainability initiatives and fostering a supportive GPC. Table 1 presents an overview of GHRM practices categorized within these three dimensions.

Our analysis of ability-enhancing practices identified three primary focal areas. Training and development emerged as the most prominent initiative, encompassing environmental and sustainability awareness programs [33,41], specialized training to instill pro-environmental values [40], and competency development [23,31]. Additionally, organizations incorporated ecological considerations into their recruitment and selection processes through green hiring practices [33,35,36]. Some organizations specifically targeted candidates with green education backgrounds [31,39] and implemented comprehensive environmental training programs [32,40] to enhance employees’ sustainability competencies.

Motivation-enhancing practices primarily focused on recognition and reward systems. Studies documented the integration of environmental metrics and behaviors into performance management and appraisal systems [23,32,49], alongside the implementation of both monetary and non-monetary green rewards and compensation schemes [36,38,41]. Organizations fostered employee commitment through green goal-setting initiatives [31,40] and embedded workplace environmental behaviors into promotion and career advancement opportunities [31,44,45].

Opportunity-enhancing practices encompassed diverse employee engagement mechanisms. Organizations implemented environmental protection initiatives [23] and employee empowerment programs [36] while encouraging active participation in sustainability efforts [41]. Studies highlighted the development of green involvement practices [33,47] and the establishment of platforms to promote environmentally responsible habits and participation [49]. These initiatives collectively foster organizational environments where employees can effectively apply their environmental skills and observe their direct contributions to sustainability outcomes [35,45].

Summarizing, our analysis of direct, mediating, and moderating effects supports the integrated perspective highlighting that AMO practices contributes to reinforce GPC. This enhances environmental initiatives by cultivating a supportive learning environment, fostering collective environmental values, and promoting shared responsibility. Moreover, GPC mediates the relationship between GHRM practices and key outcomes, including sustainable performance [23], environmental efficiency [45], and pro-environmental behaviors [38]. Furthermore, factors such as ethical leadership [35], environmentally specific transformational leadership [41], and sustainability-focused organizational culture [45] enhance the effectiveness of GHRM practices. These findings underscore the crucial role of psychological mechanisms and organizational context in shaping both organizational and environmental outcomes.

4. Discussion

This study presents a comprehensive analysis of the relationship between GHRM practices and GPC in organizational contexts. Through a review of 16 empirical studies, it examines how GHRM influences green behaviors, organizational performance, and sustainability outcomes. Additionally, it investigates how the structuring of GHRM through the AMO framework enhances its effectiveness in fostering a green-oriented organizational climate.

Our findings reveal a nuanced interplay between the direct and indirect effects of GHRM practices. While direct relationships between GHRM practices and GPC consistently show positive associations, the strength of these relationships varies significantly across specific GHRM components. Green pay and rewards demonstrate the strongest direct effect, followed by performance management, while green recruitment shows no significant impact. These findings suggest that financial and performance-oriented practices may be more effective than selection-focused initiatives in shaping environmental climate.

Interestingly, the mediating effects of GPC reveal a pattern that complements these direct relationships. Multiple studies confirm that GPC serves as a key mediating mechanisms in the GHRM–environmental performance relationship. For instance, Gupta and Kaur [36] found that GPC acts as an explanatory mechanism for the relationship between GHRM and employee green behavior, while Li et al. [27] reported strong mediation effects on pro-environmental behaviors. This indicates that only implementing GHRM policies is insufficient; instead, cultivating an overarching climate helps embed sustainability into employees’ daily experiences.

Our findings indicate the apparently contradictory effects of individual and organizational factors. At the individual level, environmental sensitivity enhances the GPC–behavior relationship, while individual green values show no significant moderation. This apparent contradiction is resolved when considering the broader context: organizational factors like ethical leadership and green culture consistently strengthen GHRM–GPC relationships, suggesting that organizational context may be more influential than individual predispositions.

Another interesting result is the identification of a coherent pattern of cross-level effects that complement each other. At the individual level, GHRM practices influence environmental behaviors through both direct and mediated pathways through GPC. These effects are amplified at the team level, where collective climate perceptions strengthen environmental initiatives. This multi-level integration suggests that GHRM practices create synergistic effects across organizational levels, with individual and collective responses reinforcing each other.

While our study highlights some variations across cultural contexts, the direct comparative evidence is limited. A more nuanced understanding of how the different values, social norms and economic contexts affect the interplay between GHRM and GPC and its effects on environmental behaviors may show encouraging results and potential best practices. As some literature shows, some components of culture, such as individualism versus collectivism, influence pro-environmental actions [53]. Similarly, as economic development and governance structures may affect public engagement in ecological conservation [54], emerging economies may face trade-offs between environmental protection and economic growth [55]. These results highlight the potential of further addressing the impact of cultural differences on the implementation of organizational environmental practices.

To effectively adapt GHRM practices across different regions, a context-sensitive approach is essential, integrating cultural, economic, and regulatory variations. This requires consistency at two levels: alignment with regional environmental norms and labor laws, and adaptation to cultural values and social expectations. At the first level, global sustainability frameworks can facilitate the integration of GHRM into local green initiatives. At the second level, tailoring training programs to regional values and norms can enhance employee engagement with GHRM practices. Ultimately, a culturally flexible yet methodologically structured approach to GHRM implementation can improve its effectiveness across diverse settings.

Empirical evidence on cultural differences in GHRM effectiveness remains scarce. One of the few studies addressing this issue, conducted by Mo et al. [40], found that team-level GHRM practices had a stronger influence on collective environmental behaviors in the United States compared to China. However, more cross-regional comparative studies are needed to better understand how cultural factors moderate the GHRM–GPC relationship. The predominance of studies from Asian contexts, particularly China and Pakistan, in our review reflects the growing importance of environmental management in these economies but also underscores the need for research in Western and other cultural settings.

Additionally, our analysis suggests that industry characteristics may play a role in shaping the effectiveness of GHRM practices. Some studies in service-oriented industries, such as hospitality [31,46], report consistent GHRM–GPC relationships and environmental outcomes, while others in sectors like healthcare [38,48] and higher education [23] show mixed results. Similarly, research in manufacturing [32,42] and industrial sectors [33,44] demonstrates varying degrees of GHRM effectiveness.

The AMO framework provides an explanatory lens for understanding how GHRM fosters employees’ sustainability engagement and resolve apparent contradictions in our findings. Ability-enhancing practices, such as green training, develop employees’ environmental competencies, while motivation-enhancing practices, including green rewards, reinforce commitment. Opportunity-enhancing practices, such as employee involvement, create conditions for sustained green behaviors. By integrating these three dimensions, GHRM functions as a holistic HRM strategy that not only supports green behaviors but also ensures their long-term integration into organizational culture. The strongest effects consistently emerge when practices address multiple AMO components simultaneously, explaining why comprehensive GHRM systems outperform isolated initiatives.

The multi-level nature of GHRM–GPC relationships offers further insights into its impact. Mo et al.’s [40] comparative studies in China and the United States demonstrate how team-level GHRM practices influence collective environmental behaviors through team green psychological climate, with stronger effects observed in the United Stated compared to China. These findings highlight the importance of considering both individual and team-level processes in assessing GHRM effectiveness. At the same time, cognitive factors, such as employees’ green awareness, contribute to how effectively they interpret and act upon GHRM initiatives, reinforcing the importance of psychological mechanisms in shaping sustainability-oriented HRM.

However, our review also reveals some gaps in the current understanding of GHRM–GPC dynamics. The temporal dimension of GHRM implementation emerges as an understudied aspect, with most studies providing cross-sectional evidence. The long-term evolution of GPC in response to GHRM practices remains unclear, warranting longitudinal research to capture the dynamic nature of organizational climate and the potential cumulative effects of GHRM over time.

Finally, leadership and organizational culture emerge as key contextual factors. Studies incorporating leadership variables (i.e., Younis and Hussain [48]) suggest that green transformational leadership complements GHRM practices in developing GPC. Similarly, Shah et al. [45] found strong associations between GHRM and green organizational culture, reinforcing the interconnected nature of various organizational systems in promoting environmental sustainability.

4.1. Theoretical and Practical Implications

From a theoretical perspective, this review expands existing knowledge by consolidating empirical evidence on the role of GPC as a mediator in the GHRM–performance relationship. While prior research has often treated GHRM and GPC as separate constructs, this study synthesizes findings that demonstrate their interdependence and mutual reinforcement. Additionally, the findings highlight the importance of individual-level factors (such as environmental sensitivity) and organizational structures (such as ethical leadership), contributing to a more nuanced, context-aware understanding of GHRM. Our comprehensive methodological assessment using the QUADAS-2 framework, which revealed low risk of bias across domains (75–94%), further enhances the credibility of these theoretical contributions by underlining the methodological rigor of the included studies.

On a practical level, integrating GHRM as a system appears to enhance its effectiveness compared to fragmented implementations. Green performance management and reward systems emerge as particularly strong predictors of GPC, suggesting that aligning incentive structures with environmental objectives fosters a stronger sustainability-oriented climate. The consistency of sustainability initiatives across different organizational levels also reinforces GPC, with leadership styles (particularly ethical and transformational leadership) enhancing the perceived credibility and impact of GHRM practices by strategically building supportive contexts and carefully considering cultural and sectoral variations in implementation.

More in detail, organizations seeking to implement GHRM practices can adopt a multi-faceted strategy to integrate sustainability into workforce development, performance management, and organizational culture. Research has demonstrated the effectiveness of green training programs on employees’ environmental awareness leading in turn to increased engagement in sustainable practices [52]. Additionally, incorporating green criteria into recruitment processes ensures the selection of candidates aligned with the organization’s sustainability values, fostering a workforce committed to environmental initiatives [56]. Lastly, the study of Zafar and Suseno [49] has shown that well-structured reward systems, including incentives and recognition for eco-friendly behaviors, significantly motivate employees to adopt and maintain pro-environmental actions.

These findings indicate that GHRM functions both as an HR practice and as a strategic component in shaping environmental commitment within organizations. However, sector-specific requirements and cultural contexts influence the effectiveness of GHRM, highlighting the importance of tailored approaches rather than one-size-fits-all solutions.

4.2. Limitations and Future Directions

Despite its valuable contributions, this review has some limitations. First, a notable consideration in interpreting our findings is the geographic concentration of our data, with a substantial proportion coming from Asian countries, particularly China and Pakistan. Although this provides robust insights into these specific contexts, it potentially limits the broader generalizability of our results to other regions with a different generalizability of findings to Western and other cultural settings. This regional focus, while a limitation, also offers unique insights into a significant portion of the global population. Future research would benefit from expanding data collection to other countries and continents, to validate whether the patterns observed in our Asian-dominated dataset hold true across different cultural and economic contexts. Additionally, comparative studies between regions could illuminate how regional factors influence the outcomes we observed.

Second, the predominance of cross-sectional study designs limits causal interpretations. While significant relationships were identified, the long-term impact of GHRM practices on GPC and sustainability outcomes remains unclear. Longitudinal studies are needed to understand these practices develop and maintain their effectiveness over time. Such research would reveal the temporal dynamics between GHRM and GPC, capturing both immediate impacts and cumulative effects as organizations’ environmental initiatives mature.

Third, most studies focus on traditional corporate settings, overlooking other important sectors such as public institutions and non-profit organizations. Future research should explore how GHRM operates in diverse work environments where sustainability is not necessarily tied to profitability but rather to social responsibility.

Lastly, the exclusion of non-English studies may introduce publication bias, potentially limiting the comprehensiveness and generalizability of the findings. Future reviews should consider including studies published in other languages to ensure a more diverse and representative sample of research on GHRM and GPC.

5. Conclusions

This work advances our understanding of how GHRM practices and GPC jointly influence organizational environmental performance through an integrated theoretical framework based on the AMO model. By applying this perspective, it is possible to explain how GHRM fosters environmental performance by influencing three key dimensions: abilities, by developing employees’ knowledge and skills through green training programs; motivation, by reinforcing pro-environmental commitment through incentives, leadership, and cultural alignment; and opportunities, by creating workplace conditions that facilitate sustainable behaviors. This framework highlights how a comprehensive approach to GHRM—one that simultaneously enhances abilities, motivation, and opportunities—strengthens GPC, which in turn shapes employees’ environmental attitudes and behaviors. The findings suggest that GPC functions as a key mediating mechanism within this framework, amplifying the effectiveness of GHRM in promoting sustainability at the organizational level.

The analysis identifies concrete applications of GHRM strategies. Environmental training programs contribute to integrating technical and behavioral competencies, reinforced by clear performance metrics and incentives. Policy interventions, such as financial incentives and industry-specific environmental benchmarks, support the development of structured sustainability initiatives. The effectiveness of GHRM varies across industrial sectors, revealing nuanced implementation strategies. Manufacturing and industrial firms benefit from operational training focused on direct environmental impact reduction and technical skill development, whereas hospitality, service, and tourism organizations see stronger effects from customer-facing sustainability programs and employee engagement initiatives.

The review predominantly features studies conducted in Asian organizations, particularly in China, emphasizing the growing relevance of environmental management in emerging economies. At the same time, this distribution highlights the need for further research across Western and global industrial settings to develop more context-sensitive GHRM strategies. Future research could explore these dynamics through longitudinal studies, cross-cultural comparisons, and sector-specific investigations to refine best practices. Additionally, expanding research beyond traditional organizational settings and incorporating experimental approaches could enhance the causal understanding of GHRM–GPC relationships.

As environmental challenges intensify, this integrated perspective on GHRM–GPC relationships provides insights into the mechanisms through which organizations foster environmental performance while contributing to broader sustainability goals.