Green HRM practices, organizational green performance and employee satisfaction: A comparative study of Indian organizations

Introduction

In recent years, organizations have started to pay much greater attention to their relationship with the natural environment. Environmental responsibility was once viewed mainly as a social or philanthropic activity. Today, it has become an important part of organizational planning, decision-making, and daily operations. Rising global temperatures, resource depletion, industrial pollution, and the visible consequences of climate change have compelled governments, regulators, consumers, and investors to demand greater environmental accountability from business organizations. In this changing environment, Human Resource Management (HRM) has an important role to play, because employees are the people who put organizational policies into practice. Environmental technologies, green certifications, and sustainability policies achieve little unless the people who operate within an organization genuinely understand, accept, and enact them. This understanding has led to the development of Green Human Resource Management (Green HRM), which means aligning HR policies and practices with an organization's environmental goals. Green HRM proposes that every core HR function recruitment and selection, training and development, performance appraisal, compensation and rewards, and employee engagement can be redesigned to embed ecological values, transforming the workforce itself into an agent of environmental change. Despite growing academic and managerial interest, the extent to which Green HRM practices are actually embedded in Indian organizations, the barriers organizations face in implementing them, and their consequences for both organizational and employee-level outcomes remain insufficiently understood, particularly across a comparative, multi-sector sample. The present study addresses this gap by examining Green HRM practices with specific attention to their association with organizational Green Performance and employee satisfaction, while also undertaking a comparative appraisal of green and non-green organizations.

Review of Literature

Research on Green HRM has grown considerably in recent years. Studies have examined the subject across different industries and countries, using both conceptual and empirical approaches. This section synthesises the empirical evidence organised around the four objectives pursued in this study. Rupa et al. (2024) [1] examined the relationship between Green HRM practices and environmental performance in Bangladesh, emphasising the mediating role of sustainability-oriented employee behaviour. Using PLS-SEM on 310 employees, they found that green recruitment and selection and green compensation and rewards were positively associated with environmental performance, whereas green training and performance appraisal showed no significant direct or indirect relationships indicating that the presence of a Green HRM practice alone does not guarantee performance gains. Aftab et al. (2023) [2] , studying a developing-country manufacturing context using Structural Equation Modelling, found that Green HRM supports environmental performance both directly and indirectly, with green innovation and a clearly articulated environmental strategy strengthening this relationship. Obeidat et al. (2020) [3] , examining 144 managers in the Qatari oil and gas sector using Partial Least Squares analysis, found that top-management support and internal environmental orientation positively influenced Green HRM adoption, which in turn improved environmental and organizational performance. Miah et al. (2024) [4] , using PLS-SEM on 288 university employees in Bangladesh, found that Green HRM practices positively predicted employee green behaviour, an effect strengthened by environmental knowledge and green self-efficacy.

Green HRM and organizational/environmental performance

Challenges in implementing Green HRM

Chowdhury et al. (2026) [5] used the Fuzzy DEMATEL method in the garment manufacturing sector to show that implementation barriers weak enforcement of environmental laws, limited awareness, insufficient buyer pressure, and lack of top-management support are interconnected rather than independent, requiring a systemic response. Islam et al. (2019) [6] , through qualitative interviews with 12 managers in the Bangladesh ready-made garment industry, identified limited environmental knowledge, absence of formal rules, weak managerial interest, high implementation cost, and high employee turnover as key barriers, recommending stronger regulation, training, and monetary incentives. Hossain et al. (2026) [7] , using key informant interviews in the Bangladesh leather sector, found that bureaucratic procedures, budget limitations, and the absence of formal environmental knowledgemanagement systems continued to constrain adoption despite firmlevel effort.

Adoption patterns and employee green behaviour

Karmoker et al. (2021) [8] , studying 270 garment-sector employees using moderated regression, found that Green HRM practices significantly predicted both on-the-job and off-the-job green behaviour, an effect strengthened among employees with greater environmental knowledge. Cui et al. (2026) [9] positioned job satisfaction as a mechanism linking Green HRM, viewed across the employee lifecycle, to employee green behaviour. Hossain et al. (2023) [10] , using PLS-SEM on 242 employees in Bangladeshi commercial banking, found that organizational commitment fully mediated the relationship between Green HRM and eco-friendly behaviour, suggesting that adopting Green HRM practices alone is insufficient without a parallel strengthening of employee commitment.

Green HRM and employee satisfaction

Ahmad et al. (2019) [11] , studying 177 employees in Pakistan's public healthcare sector, found that ethical leadership was positively associated with job satisfaction partly through perceived Green HRM and psychological safety, suggesting employees interpret Green HRM as a signal of ethical, employee-oriented leadership. Xie et al. (2023) [12] ,

surveying employees in the Pakistani pharmaceutical sector, found that job satisfaction significantly mediated the relationship between Green HRM and pro-environmental employee behaviour, supporting the treatment of employee satisfaction as a distinct outcome rather than one that automatically tracks environmental performance.

Research gap

The reviewed literature consistently finds a positive relationship between Green HRM practices and environmental/green performance outcomes, and generally identifies HR capability, management support, and policy clarity as leading implementation barriers. However, three gaps remain. First, most reviewed studies are situated within a single industry or country (Bangladeshi garments, Qatari oil and gas, Pakistani healthcare or pharmaceuticals), whereas the present study draws respondents from five organization types manufacturing, service, retail/trading, food processing, and agriculture within a single comparative survey. Second, few studies directly compare employee satisfaction between green and non-green organizations using a nonparametric group-comparison test; this study addresses that gap through the Mann-Whitney U test. Third, most reviewed studies rely on structural equation modelling with latent, multi-item constructs, whereas this study uses simpler, transparent regression and frequency-based tools that are more directly interpretable for practitioner audiences such as HR managers evaluating their own organization's Green HRM programme.

Objectives and hypotheses

The study is guided by four objectives:

1. To examine the impact of Green HRM practices on organizational Green Performance.

2. To identify the major challenges faced by organizations in implementing Green HRM practices.

3. To identify the most commonly implemented Green HRM practices across organizations.

4. To identify differences in employee satisfaction levels between green and non-green organizations. Corresponding to Objectives 1 and 4, two hypotheses were formulated and tested at the 5% level of significance: H 01: Green HRM practices have no significant impact on organizational Green Performance. H 11: Green HRM practices have a significant impact on organizational Green Performance. H 02: There is no significant difference in employee satisfaction levels between green and non-green organizations. H 12: There is a significant difference in employee satisfaction levels between green and non-green organizations.

Research Methodology

The study follows a quantitative, descriptive-cum-analytical research design and is based entirely on primary data. Data were collected through a structured 16-item questionnaire covering Green HRM practice perceptions, implementation challenges, practice adoption, and satisfaction outcomes, administered to 110 respondents including HR professionals, managers, executives, supervisors, and senior managers drawn from organizations in manufacturing, service, retail/trading, food processing, and agriculture/agri-business.

Respondents were selected using a purposive approach targeting individuals with direct exposure to HR, sustainability, or environmental initiatives within their organizations. No secondary organizational records were used; all measures reflect respondents' own perceptions and self-reports, which is acknowledged as a limitation of the study.

Respondent anonymity was maintained throughout, and participation was entirely voluntary. Three statistical tools were applied in line with the study's four objectives: Simple Linear Regression, with a composite Green HR Practices Index (combining HR-policy integration, selection criteria, training, and employee-participation items) as the independent vari able and organizational Green Performance as the dependent variable, to test Objective 1; Frequency and Percentage Analysis to address Objectives 2 and 3; and the Mann-Whitney U Test, a non-parametric test suited to comparing an ordinal/Likert-scale outcome (employee satisfaction) between two independent groups (green vs. non-green organizations, n = 55 each) without assuming a normal distribution, to address Objective 4. All tests were evaluated at a 5% level of significance (𝛼 = 0.05).

Results and Discussion

Sample profile

Impact of Green HRM practices on green performance (Objective 1)

Mean scores for the six Green HRM practice items ranged narrowly from 3.28 to 3.44 on a 5-point scale, indicating that these practices are present but only moderately embedded across the surveyed organizations, with no single item standing out as clearly strong or weak. Simple Linear Regression of the Green HR Practices Index on organizational Green Performance produced a strong, positive, and statistically significant relationship (R = 0.723, R The regression coefficient (B = 0.368, p = 0.001) indicates that a oneunit increase in the Green HR Practices Index is associated with a 0.368-unit increase in the Green Performance score, holding other factors constant. The non-significant intercept (p = 0.692) suggests that Green Performance gains are attributable to the HR practices themselves rather than to an unrelated baseline effect. Since p = 0.001 < 0.05, the null hypothesis (H 01 ) is rejected and the alternative hypothesis (H 11 ) is accepted: Green HRM practices have a statistically significant, positive impact on organizational Green Performance, ex-plaining just over half (52.3%) of the variance a substantial effect for survey-based research. This finding is consistent with Aftab et al.

(2023) [2] and Obeidat et al. (2020) [3] , both of whom report a positive association between Green HRM adoption and environmental/organizational performance, though it contrasts with Rupa et al. (2024) [1] , who found that not all individual practices (notably training and appraisal) independently predicted environmental performance. The present study's use of a composite index rather than practice-

Major challenges in implementing Green HRM practices (Objective 2)

A lack of trained HR professionals was the most frequently reported implementation challenge (31.8%), followed by a lack of management support (27.3%), a lack of clear organizational policies (25.5%), and a lack of employee participation (15.5%). As this objective is descriptive in nature, no formal hypothesis test was applied. The prominence of HR-capability and management-support gaps echoes Islam et al. (2019) [6] and Hossain et al. (2026) [7] , who similarly found that formal organizational systems and managerial commitment rather than employee attitudes alone are the binding con-straints on Green HRM implementation. This also aligns with Chowdhury et al. (2026) [5] 's finding that such barriers tend to be interconnected: a shortage of trained HR staff plausibly limits an organization's capacity to secure management buy-in or to formalise clear green HR policies, compounding the implementation gap rather than acting as an isolated bottleneck.

Most commonly implemented Green HRM practices (Objective 3)

Green Recruitment was the most commonly implemented practice (67.3%), closely followed by Green Training (66.4%). Green Performance Appraisal (56.4%) and Green Rewards & Recognition (47.3%) were implemented less often. Respondents could select more than one practice, so percentages do not sum to 100%. Source: Field survey data (N = 110).

The comparatively lower adoption of Green Rewards & Recognition suggests that organizations find it easier to embed sustainability into hiring and training activities that can often be layered onto existing induction and recruitment processes at relatively low incremental cost than into reward systems, which require formally redesigning compensation structures. This pattern is broadly consistent with the conceptual literature (e.g., Rupa et al., 2024) [1] , which similarly finds recruitment and reward-linked practices to be more consequential for outcomes than training alone, even though training shows higher adoption rates in the present sample.

Employee satisfaction: Green vs. non-green organizations (Objective 4)

Employee satisfaction was compared between green (n = 55) and non-green (n = 55) organizations using the Mann-Whitney U test on two satisfaction measures. For the first measure, mean ranks were nearly identical (55.22 vs. 55.78; U = 1497.000, Z = -0.098, p = 0.922), showing no statistically significant difference. For the second measure, the green-organization group recorded a markedly higher mean rank (62.43 vs. 48.57; U = 1131.500, Z = -2.380, p = 0.017), a statistically significant difference. Since p = 0.017 < 0.05 for the second measure, H 02 is rejected and H 12 is accepted for that dimension: employees in green organizations reported significantly higher satisfaction on this measure. However, since p = 0.922 > 0.05 for the first measure, H 02 is not rejected on that dimension. Taken together, the results indicate that Green HRM's effect on employee satisfaction is selective rather than uniform it appears to shape employees' specific perceptions of the organization's environmental effectiveness more strongly than it shapes broader dimensions of workplace satisfaction, which are also influenced by working conditions, leadership, compensation, and career opportunities. This mixed finding is consistent with Xie et al. (2023) [12] and Ahmad et al. (2019) [11] , both of whom position job satisfaction as a partial, conditional outcome of Green HRM rather than one that moves in lockstep with environmental performance.

Integrative discussion

Taken together, the four sets of findings provide a clear picture of the current state of Green HRM in the organizations covered by the study. Green HRM practices are present in the surveyed organizations but only moderately embedded, consistent with item means clustering just above the scale midpoint (3.28-3.44 of 5). Despite this moderate embeddedness, the practices in place show a strong, statistically significant relationship with Green Performance (R 2 = 52.3%), suggesting meaningful returns to further investment rather than diminishing returns at current adoption levels. The leading implementation barrier a shortage of trained HR professionals (31.8%) offers a plausible explanation for why adoption remains moderate: without sufficient HR capacity, organizations may adopt the practices that are easiest to implement (recruitment criteria, training content) while leaving practices requiring more structural change (reward systems, consistent ap-praisal criteria) comparatively underdeveloped a pattern directly visible in the adoption gap between Green Recruitment/Training (66-67%) and Green Rewards & Recognition (47.3%). Finally, the mixed employee-satisfaction findings suggest that even where Green HRM yields measurable performance benefits, its effect on how employees feel about the organization's efforts is more selective, a nuance organizations should bear in mind when evaluating Green HRM purely by its performance impact rather than also its people impact.

Conclusion

This study examined Green HRM practices across different types of Indian organizations and looked at their relationship with organizational Green Performance and employee satisfaction. The findings show that Green HRM practices, though only moderately embedded, are strongly and significantly associated with organizational Green Performance (R 2 = 52.3%), supporting their treatment as a meaningful internal organizational capability rather than a peripheral HR activity. A shortage of trained HR professionals and insufficient management support remain the principal obstacles to fuller implementation. Green Recruitment and Green Training are comparatively well adopted, reflecting organizations' emphasis on building employee capability, while Green Rewards & Recognition remains underdeveloped, indicating comparatively less attention to motivating and recognizing green contributions. Employee satisfaction responds to Green HRM selectively rather than uniformly: organizations should not assume that introducing Green HRM automatically improves every dimension of employee experience. Practically, organizations seeking to strengthen their Green HRM programmes should prioritise investment in trained HR capability and visible senior-management sponsorship, extend green criteria into reward and recognition systems to reinforce the motivational dimension alongside existing capability-building efforts, formalise green performance appraisal as a consistent rather than occasional practice, and actively involve employees in green decision-making rather than relying on top-down communication. Given the study's cross-sectional design, reliance on self-reported perceptions, and a sample drawn from organizations accessible to the researcher, the findings should not be generalised as representative of all Indian organizations or interpreted as evidence of long-term causal change. Future research extending this comparative approach across wider geographies, longer time horizons, and disaggregated practice-level models would further clarify which specific Green HRM practices most reliably drive environmental and employee outcomes.

References

1. Rupa RA, Alam S, Sultana A, Alam J. The impact of Green HRM practices on environmental performance in Bangladesh: The mediating role of sustainability-oriented employee behavior. Journal of Population, Management and Information Studies. 2024;2(1).
2. Aftab J, Abid N, Cucari N, Savastano M. Green human resource management and environmental performance: The role of green innovation and environmental strategy in a developing country. Business Strategy and the Environment. 2023;32(4):1782-1798.
3. Obeidat SM, Al Bakri AA, Elbanna S. Leveraging "green" human resource practices to enable environmental and organizational performance: Evidence from the Qatari oil and gas industry. Journal of Business Ethics. 2020;164(2):371-388.
4. Miah M, Rahman SMM, Biswas S, Szabó-Szentgróti G, Walter V. Effects of green human resource management practices on employee green behavior: The role of employee's environmental knowledge management and green self-efficacy for greening workplace. International Journal of Organizational Analysis. 2024.
5. Chowdhury SR, Mendy J, Hack-Polay D, Rahman M. Challenges in green human resource management: A fuzzy DEMATEL study. Global Business and Organizational Excellence. 2026.
6. Islam MA, Hunt A, Jantan AH, Hashim H, Chong CW. Exploring challenges and solutions in applying green human resource management practices for the sustainable workplace in the readymade garment industry in Bangladesh. Business Strategy & Development. 2019;2(4):260-271.
7. Hossain M, Islam MT, Alam MK. A qualitative study of green human resource management practices and challenges in Bangladesh's leather sector. Conscientia Beam. 2026.
8. Karmoker K, Kona FA, Oyshi AH, Yasmin KS. Effects of green human resource management on employee green behavior: Moderating role of employee environmental knowledge. 2021.
9. Cui J, Zhang L, Pan J, Zhang J. The impact of green human resource management on employee green behavior: The mediating role of job satisfaction. In Proceedings of the 2026 11th International Conference on Social Sciences and Economic Development (ICSSED 2026). Springer. 2026:559-565.
10. Hossain R, Paul RK. Green HRM and eco-friendly behavior of employees: The mediating role of employee organizational commitment. Dhaka University Journal of Management. 2023;15(1&2).
11. Ahmad I, Umrani WA. The impact of ethical leadership style on job satisfaction: Mediating role of perception of Green HRM and psychological safety. Leadership & Organization Development Journal. 2019;40(5):534-547.
12. Xie J, Bhutta ZM, Li D, Andleeb N. Green HRM practices for encouraging pro-environmental behavior among employees: The mediating influence of job satisfaction. 2023.
13. Renwick DWS, Redman T, Maguire S. Green human resource management: A review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews. 2013;15(1):1-14.
14. How to cite this article: Mohire NS, Deokate P. Green HRM practices, organizational green performance and employee satisfaction: A comparative study of Indian organizations. International Journal of Agriculture Extension and Social Development. 2026;9(9):919-923. doi: https://www.doi.org/10.33 545/26180723.2026.v9.i9l.4296