**4. Results**

The impacts of the analyzed practices on the environmental development of the surveyed enterprises wereassessed using a five-point Likert scale. The results of the analysis are presented in Table 3.


**Table 3.** The impacts of activities fostering GIC on the environmental development of the studied companies.


**Table 3.** *Cont.*

Reviewing the analysis of the figures shown in Table 3, we can conclude that GICforming activities have an uneven impact on the environmental development of the studied organizations. The impact ratings of individual activities ranged from 1.48 to 3.31. The respondents considered activity no. 2, i.e., employees showing green behavior at work (e.g., paper and energy saving), to have the most impact on the environmental development of the studied enterprises (the average impact was 3.31). Other activities the respondents found essential for environmental organization development were:possessing environmental knowledge (the average impact of which was 3.12), implementing innovative environmentally-friendly projects (including technological solutions, the average impact of which was assessed at 3.01), including environmental goals in company strategies (with an impact average of 2.85), implementing environmental management (with an impact average of 2.83), updating employees on environmentally-friendly activities pursued by the organization (with an impact average of 2.67), complyingwith the principles of environmental protection in the product distribution process (the average impact of which was 2.63), environmental audits (the average impact of which was 2.62).

On the contrary, according to the respondents, the following actions had the least impacts on the environmental development of organizations (modal value 1): including environmental criteria in the process of employee recruitment (average impact 1.48), giving preference tocandidates with environmental competencies (average impact 1.51), informing employees about their environmental performances (average impact 1.77), supporting environmental initiatives (average impact 1.88), incentives to boost "green" competencies (average impact 1.89), the use of green marketing (average impact 1.93), providing reports about the environmental impacts to external stakeholders (average impact 1.97).

Against this background, implementing individual practices has become a crucial research issue. In the course of this research, the author attempted to examine the relationship between the impactratings of GIC-forming activities on the environmentaldevelopment of enterprises and their practical implementation. Table 4 demonstrates figures thatwere the bases for the calculations of the numbers of enterprises pursuing individual practices and the assessments of their impacts on environmentaldevelopment.

**Table 4.** The impact of activities fostering GIC on the environmental development of organizations and their implementation in Polish enterprises.



**Table 4.** *Cont.*

In order to establish the relationship between the impact assessments of practices on environmental development and their implementation, the author calculated Spearman's rank correlation coefficient (Table 4). The r = 0.878 rank correlation coefficient demonstrates a very strong relationship. This indicates that the pursued practices are those viewed as essential for the policy of sustainable development by the management, as expressed by the high rating of their impact.

Figure 1 represents a linear regression function. The analysis of regression was conducted with the application of the SPSS program based on data shown in Table 4. Variable X represents the managers' impactratings of actions leading to GIC accumulation on the environmental development of organizations. Variable Y stands for the number of enterprises pursuing the individual practices related to GIC development.

The linear regression model has the form of the equation:

$$\text{Y} = 0.354 \text{x} - 49.66$$

The coefficient 0.354 indicates that, a 1-point impact growth in the impact of an activity on the environmental development of the organization results in an average increase of its realization by 0.354. The coefficient of determination r2 = 0.771 means that, in 77.1%, the changeability of the number of enterprises pursuing GIC-fostering activities was explained by the estimated regression function. The coefficient of linear indetermination (1 − 0.771 = 0.229 = 22.9%) informs us that in the studied sample of organizations only 22.9% of changeability of the number of companies implementing GICfostering activities was not accounted for by the variability of the rating of their impact on the environmentaldevelopment of enterprises.

**Figure 1.** The correlation between the impacts of activities leading to the accumulation of GIC on the environmental development of the organization, and their implementations in the surveyed companies.

The regression function may be the foundation toforecast the implementation of GIC practices in the future. The established correlation allows the conclusion that an increase in the impactrating of GIC-forming activities may generate an increase in the level of their practical implementation. Therefore, popularization of knowledge about the GIC model among Polish managers can play a key role here.

## **5. Discussion**

The effect of GIC on the environmentaldevelopment of organizations was confirmed by many authors. The studies by Yadiati et al., which covered Indonesian companies, demonstrated that green intellectual capital had a positive and essential impact on environmental performance. It was determined that a unit increase in green intellectual capital generated a 0.494 increase of environmental effectiveness inIndonesian-based international companies. Furthermore, corporate reputation, which is a key element of GRC, was recognized as another principal factor. It was found that a unit increase in organizational reputation also brought about a positive increase (by a 0.424 unit) in environmental performance in Indonesian multinational firms [4].

In addition, studies by Yusliza et al. conducted across 112 manufacturing companies in Malaysia showed that the role of green intellectual capital in sustainable performance was considerable [24]. It was determined that green intellectual capital had a positive impact on both economic performance and environmental and social results. Economic performance pertains to the reduction of the cost of purchased materials, energy consumption, waste processing, and penalties for pollution and emissions [73]. Social results correspond to the improvement of stakeholders' wellbeing, community health and safety, employee health and safety, and the mitigation of risks for society in general [74]. Environmental results are associated with the limitation of pollution and emissions, energy consumption, or hazardous material use [75].

Recent studies by Malik and et al. [27] also highlight the importance of GHC in the development of sustainable organizations. The research covered 510 small- and mediumsized enterprises employing between 10 and 250 employees in Pakistan. The studies proved that all GIC components, i.e., GHC, GOC, and GRC, had positive and considerable impacts on the sustainable performances of Pakistani companies. A more in-depth analysis was conducted with respect to the following elements of green practices of human capital management: green analysis and job description, green recruitment and selection, green training, green performance evaluation, and green rewards. The studies further demonstrated that green recruitment and selection, as well as green rewards, were most central to the formation of sustainable organizations [27].

The importance of green motivation was attested by the studies conducted by Forman and Joergensen.The authors proved that green motivation increased employee involvement in pro-environmental initiatives [76]. Moreover, studies carried out in 376 Pakistani companies demonstrated the importance of educational practices in achieving the goals of green management [77].

Dangelico [78], in turn, showed a key role of green management teams in the enhancement of company reputation and environmental effectiveness. Moreover, Gross-Gołacka et al., in a study involvinga group of 1041 small- and medium-sized enterprises in Poland, demonstrated that HC had the largest impact on sustainable business [79].

The studies carried out by Chen and Chang showed a direct link between sustainable development and green human capital [1]. Green staff members significantly contribute toward increasing the environmental effectiveness and sustainable development of organizations [80]. They initiate environmental innovation, which not only brings about novel products, technologies, and processes, but also increases natural resource use in the economy and softens any adverse environmental impacts. As a consequence, energy and material intensity of manufacturing processes start to reduce, soil, water, air, and noise pollution, resulting inless pollution or less hazardous materials, whereas waste, water, and substances are recovered or reused [81].

The special role of GHC in constructing sustainable organizations stems from the fact that "environmental knowledge and skills are the foundation of implementation of cleaner manufacturing strategies" [82]. Organizations benefit from the knowledge and skills of their employees in terms of stimulating development based on decreased energy consumption, less production waste, and reduced material waste.

However, not all findings related to the role of GHC in the development of sustainable organizations are unequivocal. Studies conducted among 168 small- and medium-sized manufacturing enterprises in Malaysia did not confirm the key role of HC in the formation of sustainable organizations. Nonetheless, it was determined that green structural capital, green relational capital, and sustainable businesses were positively correlated [83]. Researchers exploring this issue emphasized that human capital alone is not sufficient to achieve permanent and sustainable results. To do so, one needs to include both green structural and green relational capital. Intangible assets, such as green organizational culture, technologies, databases, trademarks, and copyrights, are vital to sustainable action. Other key actors in sustainable performance are relations with creditors, suppliers, customers, associations, and other stakeholders [24]. The low impact of green recruitment was also confirmed by studies conducted by Owino and Kwasira and Guerci et al. [84,85]. In view of the established discrepancies related to HC, further research on the role of GIC in the development of sustainable organizations, above all, with respect to the human component, is required.
