Buch lesen: «Позитивные изменения. Том 2, №4 (2022). Positive changes. Volume 2, Issue 4 (2022)», Seite 14
Green Human Resource Management. Assessing the Impact on the Environmental Sustainability of Banks (Nigeria Case Study)
Holo Matthew Aker, Abubakar Sadiq Suleiman
DOI 10.55140/2782–5817–2022–2–4–82–95
As the ESG agenda is gaining popularity around the world, companies start paying more and more attention to environmental responsibility, striving to reduce ecological damage. Green human resource management practices are becoming part of corporate strategies. For example, this means electronic workflow, from online vacancy announcements to employee training to use the resources sparingly and to conserve energy. In this article, we discuss the effects of “green” HR on the environmental sustainability of banks in Katsina State, Nigeria.
Holo Matthew Aker
Department of Business Management, Federal University Dutsin-ma, Katsina State, Nigeria
Abubakar Sadiq Suleiman
PhD, Associate Professor, Department of Business Management, Federal University Dutsin-ma, Katsina State, Nigeria
INTRODUCTION
The global concern for environmental sustainability is on the increase. This is a result of the growing threats of climate change and global warming, as well as other environmental challenges, which are compelling individuals, organizations and governments to be more responsive to the environment. These environmental concerns have posed multifaceted managerial challenges to present-day management of organizations and have fundamentally affected operations, strategies, policies and culture of business organizations globally (Cohen et al., 2014). This phenomenon has necessitated the need to integrate environmental management practices and human resource management practices in organizations (Ali & Wael, 2018; Briggs, 2017; Renwick, et al., 2012).
Human resource management plays a crucial function in managing and coordinating the policies, activities and resources of an organization (Renwick et al., 2012) and is pivotal to achieving environmental sustainability (Ramasamy et al., 2017). Hence the growing research interest in Green Human Resource Management (GHRM) that denotes the integration of human resource management practices and environmental management practices to encourage employees' commitment to environmental protection (Gharibeh, 2019).
Though GHRM is a relatively new concept in human resource management that is still underdeveloped in Nigeria (Adesola et al. 2021; Diri & Otekenari, 2021), the global threat of climate change and other environmental challenges affecting Nigeria have made it a necessity in the business circles and beyond, specifically in Katsina State, which is a state in Nigeria confronted with environmental issues like drought, desert encroachment, deforestation, land degradation, erosion and pollutions caused by climate change (Abaje, et al., 2017; Ibrahim, 2018), and other harmful environmental threats that need to be curbed.
Liu (2010) asserts that harmful environmental challenges are caused largely by activities of business organizations which have contributed significantly to carbon footprint. This assertion is true of Katsina State that has manufacturing and service-based organizations, including deposit money banks (DMBs), whose activities may cause environmental concerns. For example, Edeh and Okwurume (2019) alluded that most Nigerian banks have failed to fully integrate sustainable elements like environmental sustainability into their employees' daily work routine. This is despite the fact that they have adopted the Nigerian Sustainable Banking Principles (NSBP) (Committee of Nigerian Sustainabilty Banking Principles, 2018; Deloitte, West Africa, 2017). This is particularly evident in DMB branches in Katsina State, which still engage in activities that cause high carbon footprint, such as use of fossil fuel for their generating sets and vehicles, use of paper printouts in their transactions, poor waste management and recycling culture, lack of green space in their offices and premises, and lack of carpooling practices, among other harmful environmental practices. This necessitates the evaluation of the human resource management practices and activities of organizations operating in Katsina State against the environment in which they operate. Since DMBs are the most visible corporate organizations that can be found in almost all parts of Katsina State, this study focused on evaluating the effect of GHRM practices on environmental sustainability of deposit money banks (DMBs) in Katsina State. The study covers a one-year period of 2021.
Specific objectives of the study include:
1. Evaluating the effect of green job design and analysis on environmental sustainability of DMBs in Katsina State.
2. Examining the effect of green recruitment and selection practice on environmental sustainability of DMBs in Katsina State.
3. Ascertaining the effect of green training and development practice on environmental sustainability of DMBs in Katsina State.
In follow-up to the stated objectives, the study formulated the following null hypotheses to be tested in order to provide evidence for drawing conclusions:
H01: Green job design and analysis has no significant influence on environmental sustainability.
H02: Green recruitment and development practices have no significant influence on environmental sustainability.
H03: Green training and development practices have no significant influence on environmental sustainability.
LITERATURE REVIEW
This section explains conceptual and theoretical frameworks, concepts of GHRM, environmental sustainability, green job design and analysis, green recruitment and selection and green training and development. It also reviews earlier empirical studies on GHRM practice and environmental sustainability.
The conceptual framework shows how GHRM practices sub-constructs of green job design and analysis practice, green recruitment and selection practice and green training and development practice relate to and influence environmental sustainability.
The study adopted stakeholder theory for better understanding and appreciation of GHRM practices and environmental sustainability. The stakeholder approach, as proposed by Edward Freeman in 1984, postulates that organization stakeholders are comprised of all groups or individuals that affect or are affected by the company's actions, decisions, policies, practices, goals or general operations, (Bhasin, 2020; Freeman, 1984 as cited in Guerci, et al., 2015). The theory stressed that management is responsible for creating and maximizing value for all stakeholders without compromising interest of any (About Stakeholder Theory, 2018). Guerci et al. (2015) observed that most management influenced by the stakeholder theory have implemented environmental management system in their firms. They further revealed that customers and regulatory pressures are significantly and positively related to environmental performance; hence stakeholders exert varying degrees of pressure on the organization to cater for their interests. And with environmental sustainability spawning increased concerns amongst business stakeholders such as employees, customers, communities, governments, activists and scholars (Jackson et al., 2011), coupled with ethical considerations for businesses, institutions and establishments to be socially responsible for the environment in which they live and operate, stakeholder theory become appropriate theory to explain GHRM and environmental sustainability.
GREEN HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
The concept of green human resource management (GHRM) is perceived to have been introduced to HRM practice as recently as in the 1990s (Renwick et al., 2008), and it is given multiple definitions by different scholars. According to Opatha (2014, p. 15), GHRM refers to “the policies, practices and systems that make employees of an organization green for the benefit of the individual, society, natural environment, and the business.” Making the employees green here entails workforce that is aware of environmental sustainability practice and takes initiatives and actions that benefit nature, themselves, the community and environment where they operate. Jabbour (2013, p. 149) viewed GHRM as the “systematic, planned alignment of typical human resource management practices with the organizational environmental goals.”
Mandip (2012) states that GHRM is about getting all employees to initiate and engage in environmentally friendly practices and enhancing employees' awareness and commitment to environmental sustainability issues. He further stresses that human resources should serve as an impetus for environmental sustainability within organizations as it will align policies and practices with sustainability goals.
GREEN JOB DESIGN AND ANALYSIS (GJD)
Green job design refers to the organization of job tasks, duties and responsibilities-based content, methods and techniques, by providing green working structure and process, green instruments for performance of jobs and maintaining green modeling leadership that promotes protection and conservation of the natural environment and its resources (Sari-aytekin, 2021). Renwick et al. (2008) asserts that green job design and analysis practice stresses environmental issues as related to the job specifications and job duties, which is done within the context of environmental experiences and competencies to suit the job in the aspect of environmental responsibility. This human resource practice ensures all employees' personalities, attributes and norms are aligned with the concept of environmental sustainability of their organizations (Shaban, 2019).
GREEN RECRUITMENT AND SELECTION (GRS)
Green recruitment implies attracting and hiring talented persons who are aware of and familiar with the terms of conservation and protection of the environment (Bangwal & Tiwari, 2015). The green recruitment and selection processes are usually paperless and electronic, from online vacancy announcement and job application, telephone interview, CBT and video call to interact with interviewees, selecting prospective employee based on environmental sustainability awareness and knowledge.
GREEN TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT (GTD)
Green training and development implies the advancement of an employee's attitudes, behaviors, knowledge and skills that help them to avoid practices that are detrimental to environment, (Zoogah, 2011). Green training and development equips employees with working methods and behavior that minimizes waste, encourage prudent use of resources and energy conservation, reduces environmental degradation and practices that threaten the environment and ecological scarcity. It also involves use of e-platforms and creates avenues to engage employees in addressing environmental. concerns (Bangwal et al. 2017; Zoogah, 2011).
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
Sustainability as described by the US Environmental Protection Agency (2021) is “to create and maintain conditions under which humans and nature can exist in productive harmony, that permit fulfilling the social, economic and other requirements of present and future generations.” Environmental sustainability is one of the elements of sustainability development and it entails the ability of the present generation to meet their resource needs without compromising the ability of the future generations to meet theirs (Ezeabasili, 2009; United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development Report, 1987). Environmental sustainability (ES), on the other hand, is defined as the ability to preserve the qualities valued in the physical environment by adopting strategies aimed to prevent damage being done to the environment (Philip, 2004). These preventive measures include actions to curb the use of non-renewable resources, the adoption of a ‘recycle everything and buy recycled' approach, the use of renewable rather than non-degradable resources, the redesign of operation/production processes and products to eradicate the production of non-renewable materials, and protection and restoration of natural habitats and environments valued for healthy living (Ramasamy et al., 2017).
REVIEW OF EMPIRICAL STUDIES
This research reviews previous studies on GHRM practices and environmental sustainability.
Adesola et al. (2021) conducted an exploratory study on GHRM and environmental performance of Nigerian manufacturing companies and applied linear regression for data analysis. The study found that green recruitment and selection, green training and development, green performance appraisal and green reward have a significant positive relationship with environmental performance in Nigeria's manufacturing sector. Mandago (2019) examined the influence of GHRM practices on the environmental sustainability in service-based state corporations in Kenya, using multiple regression technique. The study found that green recruitment and selection, green training and development, green reward and compensation, and green performance management practices have a significant positive effect on environmental sustainability. Similarly, Owine and Kwasira (2016) study investigated the influence of selected GHRM practices on environmental sustainability at Menengai Oil Refinery Limited in Nakuru, Kenya, using paired sample t-test for testing the hypotheses. The study found that green employee sourcing and green employee training and development have no significant relationship to environmental sustainability. Green performance management system and green occupational health and safety, on the other hand, were found to be positively correlated and to have significant relationship with environmental sustainability.
Rawashdeh (2018) examined the impact of GHRM on organizational environmental performance, and explored the relationship between GRS, GTD, and green reward on environmental performance in Jordanian health service organizations using multiple linear regressions for analysis. Results of the study indicated a significant positive relationship between GRS, GTD, and green rewards and environmental performance. Langat and Kwasira (2016) studied the influence of GHRM practices on environmental sustainability at Kenyatta University. They adopted Pearson correlation and multiple regression to determine the relationship between environmental sustainability and GHRM practices. The study found a positive and significant relationship between green ability and environmental sustainability. Jehan et al. (2020) investigated effect of GHRM practices on environmental sustainability using structural equation modeling to evaluate the relationship between the variables. The results revealed that GTD had a significant positive impact on environmental sustainability. However, GRS result showed insignificant effect on environmental performance.
Mobarez (2018) also evaluates the effect of GHRM on organization's sustainable environmental performance in Metal and other Industries in Egypt. The study employed multiple regressions for analyses of green recruitment, green training, and green learning. The results indicated that all the GHRM practice sub-constructs have positive and significant relationship to the organization's sustainable environmental performance. Muhammad et al. (2019) examined GHRM, green organizational culture and environmental performance at state hospitals in Palembang City, Indonesia. Multiple linear regression was used to test the hypothesis. The study revealed that GRS has insignificant effect on environmental performance, while green training and green compensation have significant effect on environmental performance. Zhoa et al. (2020) did a study on proactive environmental strategy and environmental reputation through the role of GHRM and discretionary slack in ecologically sensitive small and medium firms in eastern China. Their findings revealed that GHRM practice is significantly related to environmental reputation.
Bangwal et al. (2017) examined GHRM, work-life and environmental performance through direct and indirect effect of GHRM practices. Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to analyze the data from 365 employees of Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)-certified companies. The study found significant positive direct effect of GHRM practices on environmental performance. More so, Gill et al. (2021) studied the effect of GHRM on environmental performance through the role of employee eco-friendly. Multiple regressions technique and structural equation modeling were used for analysis. The study indicates that organizational GHRM has positive and significant effect on environmental performance. Singh and Shikha (2015) analyzed the impact of green human resource factor on environmental performance in manufacturing firms. Linear regression was employed to test the hypotheses. The result indicated significat and positive relationship between top management commitment, employee environmental training and green program on environmental performance.
It is worth noting that none of the studies reviewed included green job design and analysis, which entails integrating environmental sustainability related tasks, duties and responsibilities into each job. This has created a substantial gap.
METHODOLOGY
The study adopts the descriptive survey research design since the researcher has no control of the variables and no intention to manipulate any of them. The study population comprised 674 employees of DMBs in the three major towns of the three senatorial zones in Katsina State. Namely, Daura town, Katsina metropolis and Funtua town in North Senatorial Zone, Central Senatorial Zone and South Senatorial Zone (Saifullahi et al., 2016) respectively. Primary data was collected via structured questionnaires with closed-ended statement based on 5-point Likert scale that range from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The questionnaire for green job design was formed from Bombiak (2019) list of green practices at each stage of the HR function, while the other GHRM and environmental sustainability practices were adapted from a scholarly study by Mandago (2019). Out of the 672 questionnaires distributed, 420 were validly completed and returned, while multiple regression was used to analysis the data collected.
Cronbach's Alpha coefficient was used to assess the reliability of the instrument of the study so as to ensure consistency of the measurement. Instruments with a Cronbach's alpha coefficient of 0.7 and above were considered reliable and suitable for the study. The hypothesis of the study was tested at 5 % level of significance (alpha, α = 0.05). If the p-value was greater than or equal to alpha (p-value ≥ 0.05), the null hypothesis was accepted. However, a p-value less than the alpha (p-value < 0.05) meant the null hypothesis was rejected.
The model for the study is expressed thus:
ES = β0 + β1 GJDA + β2 GRS + β3 GTD + µ (1)
Where: ES = Environmental Sustainability; β0 = the intercept (constant); β1 = coefficient of Green job design and analysis; β2 = coefficient of Green recruitment and selection; β3 = coefficient of Green training and development.
GJDA = Green job design and analysis;
GRS = Green recruitment and selection practices; GTD = Green training and development practices; while µ = the error term.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
This section presents the results of the analysis conducted using SPSS software, the summary of which is contained in Table 1, 2 and 3.
Table 1. Reliability Statistics
Table 2. Model Summary
Table 3. Coefficients
The reliability test in Table 1 shows that the five variables have Cronbach's alpha coefficient above 0.70, which according to Hair et al. (2010) is considered the minimum acceptable level.
REGRESSION RESULTS
A regression analysis was conducted by regressing environmental sustainability on GJD, GRS and GTD via multiple regression model.
Table 2 shows the R square of 0.467, signifying that 46.7 per cent of variations in environmental sustainability are explained by the predictors vis-à-vis GJD, GRS, and GTD. The Table further shows F-statistic of 121.333 and its associated P-value of 0.00 which is statistically significant at 0.001. This is a confirmation that the joint estimated coefficient of GJD, GRS, and GTD are statistically significant on environmental sustainability. Also, Table 2 shows the Durbin-Watson Statistics of 1.914, which confirms nonautocorrelation of errors.
Similarly, the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) in Table 3 are 1.028, 1.147 and 1.129 for GJD, GRS, and GTD with associated tolerance statistics of 0.979, 0.872 and 0.886 respectively. The VIF are well below 5.0 and the tolerance statistics are above 0.2, which means there is no collinearity problem in this model. According to Hair et al. (2011) VIF above 5 is an indication of collinearity concern. While Field (2009) is of the view that tolerance statistics below 0.2 indicate serious problems. The study's VIF and tolerance statistics are within the acceptable limits.
HYPOTHESIS ONE
H01: Green job design and analysis have no significant effect on environmental sustainability.
Table 3 shows that green job design and analysis has no significant effect on environmental sustainability as validated by the P-value of 0.728 which is greater than 5 per cent level. The study, therefore, failed to reject the null hypothesis one (H01) and concluded that GJD has no significant effect on environmental sustainability.
HYPOTHESIS TWO
H02: Green recruitment and selection practice have no significant effect on environmental sustainability.
Table 3 reveals a p-value of 0.001 which is less than 5 per cent level. This means green recruitment and selection practice have significant effect on environmental sustainability. The study therefore rejects the null hypothesis two (H02) and concluded that GRS practice has significant effect on environmental sustainability. This study confirms studies conducted by Jehan et al. (2020), Muhammad et al. (2019), Owine and Kwasira (2016), which indicates that GRS have significant effect on environmental sustainability.
HYPOTHESIS THREE
H03: Green training and development practice have no significant effect on environmental sustainability.
Table 3 indicates that green training and development practice have significant effect on environmental sustainability as indicated by a p-value of 0.01 level (i.e. p < 0.01), which is statistically significant. The study, therefore, rejects the null hypothesis and concluded that GTD practice have significant effect on environmental sustainability. Finding of this study validates those of Bangwal et al. (2017), Gill et al. (2021), Mandago (2019), Mobarez (2018), Rawashdeh (2018), and Zhao et al. (2020) which reveal that GTD have significant effect on environment sustainability.
DISCUSSIONS OF FINDINGS
The study's aim was to evaluate the effect of GHRM practices on environmental sustainability via GJD, GRS and GTD. Findings of this study shows that GJD has no effect on environmental sustainability, while GRS and GTD have statistically significant effect on environmental sustainability of DMBs in Katsina State. It will therefore be safe to state that GJD of DMBs in Katsina State has no green elements that would contribute to the sustainability of the environment. Meanwhile, GRS and GTD have a significant positive effect on the environmental sustainability, since these practices incorporate environmentally friendly activities like online job application and recruitment, computerization of recruitment and selection processes, which discourage the use of paper and travelling for exams and interviews. More so, the banks hold online training for staff; train their employees on environmental safety and health, and on the use of energy efficient equipment and facilities in the banks. All these are efforts to discourage environmental hactivities that are harmful to the environment and create safe and healthy workplace. The findings on GRS, and GTD confirm the findings by Bangwal et al. (2017), Gill et al. (2021), Mandago (2019), Mobarez (2018), Rawashdeh (2018), and Zhao et al. (2020) which established that GRS and GTD have significant effect on environmental sustainability.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The study evaluated the effect of green human resources management practices which is predicated by GJD, GRS, and GTD. Descriptive research design was employed, and structured questionnaires were administered to 672 respondents; however, only 420 questionnaires were validly completed and used for the analysis. Regression result revealed the p-value of 0.728, 0.001 and 0.001 for GJD, GRS, and GTD respectively. Based on these findings, the following conclusions are made:
1. GJD has insignificant effect on environmental sustainability of DMBs In Katsina State, because the p-value is well above 5 %.
2. GRS practice of MDBs in Katsina State shows a positive and statistically significant effect on environmental sustainability at a p-value of 0.001.
3. The p-value of 0.001 for GTD practice of MDBs in Katsina State indicates a positive and statistically significant effect on environmental sustainability.
In line with the study's findings and resulting conclusions, the study recommended that:
1. DMBs in Katsina State should collaborate with their headquarters to review their job design and analysis to include at least one element of green practice and green working structure as a duty and designed environment for their employees. By so doing they will be creating green consciousness in their employees.
2. The banks should make their GRS practices more sustainable and include knowledge of environmental sustainability in their job criteria so as to attract those that are green conscious and brand themselves as environmentally friendly organization.
3. DMBs should just like other sustainability elements (economy and social) make well defined policies on environment sustainability and incorporate in all their human resource practices.
4. DMBs should treat the environmental sustainability issues all seriousness it desire, since by so doing they will be maximizing this non-financial value to a broader range of stakeholders.
REFERENCES
1. Abaje, I. B., Onu, V., Abashiya, M., Oyatayo, K. T., Ibrahim, A. A., Ati, O. F. & Sawa, B. A. (2017). Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment in Northern Part of Katsina State, Nigeria: A quantitative approach. Dutse Journal of Pure and Applied Science (DUJOPAS), 3(1)1–14.
2. About Stakeholder Theory. (2018). Retrieved from: http://www.stakeholdertheory.org/ about. (accessed 22.12.2020).
3. Adesola, M. A., Yahaya, Y. & Abodunde, S. M. (2021). An Exploratory Study of Green Human Resource Management and Environmental Performance of Nigerian Manufacturing Companies. Indiana Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 2(7), 50–57. Retrieved from: https:// indianapublications.com/Journals/IJHSS. (accessed 10.12.2022).
4. Ali, H. H. & Wael, L. S. (2018). Impact of Green Human Resource Management on Employee Behaviour. Journal of Applied Business Research, 6(1), 18–34.
5. Bangwal, D., Tiwari, P. & Chamola, P. (2017). Green HRM, Work-Life and Environment Performance. International Journal of Environment Workplace and Employment 4(3), 244–268. DOI: 10.1504/ IJEWE.2017.10008697.
6. Bangwal, D., Tiwari, P. (2015). Green HRM – A Way of Greening the Environment. IOSR Journal of Business Management (IORS-JBM) 17(12), 45–53. DOI: 10.9790/487X-171214553.
7. Bhasin, H. (2020, October 6). Marketing91. Retrieved from: https://www.marketing91. com. (accessed 22.12.2020).
8. Bombiak, E. (2019). Green Human Resource Management – The Latest Trend Or Strategic Necessity? Journal of Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, 6(4), 1647–1662. http://doi.org/10.9770/ jesi.2019.
9. Briggs, H. (2017, May 31). Science & Education. Retrieved from: http://www.bbc. com. (accessed 24.11.2020).
10. Cohen, E., Taylor, S., & Muller-Camen,
M. (2012). HRM's Role in corporate social and environmental sustainability. USA: SHRMFoundation.org. Retrieved from: https://www.shrmf.org. (accessed 10.12.2022).
11. Committee of Nigerian Sustainability Banking Principles. (2019). Sustainability in the Nigerian Banking Industry: The Journey So Far (2012–2018).
12. Deloitte West Africa (2017). Sustainable Banking as a Driver for Growth: A Survey of Nigerian Banks. Retrieved from: https://www2.deloitte.com/za/en/nigeria/pages/strategy/articles/sustainable-banking-as-a-driver-for-growth-a-survey-of-nigerian-banks.html. (accessed 10.12.2022).
13. Diri, T. V. & Otekenari, D. E. (2021). Green Human Resource Management: A Catalyst for Environmental Sustainability in Nigeria. Journal of Global Ecology and Environment, 9–27.
14. Edeh, O. F. & Okwurume, N. C. (2019). Green Human Resource Management and Organizational Sustainability of Money Deposit Banks in Nigeria. Journal of Management Sciences, 224–235.
15. Ezeabasili, N. (2009). Legal Mechanism For Achieving Environmental Sustainability in Nigeria. African Research Review, 3(2), 368380. Retrieved from: http://www.ajol.info. (accessed 29.11.2020).
16. Field, A. P. (2009). Discovering Statistics using SPSS.
17. Gharibeh, M. (2019). The Impact of Green Human Resource management Practices (GHRMP) on Competitive Advantage of Organization. Journal of Social Sciences, 8(4), 630–640.
18. Gill, A. A., Ahmad, B., & Kazmi, S. (2021). The Effect of Green Human Resource Management on Environmental Performance: The Mediating Role of Employee Eco-Friendly Behavior. Management Science Letters, 1726–1734. Doi:10.5267/j.msl.2021.010.
19. Guerci, M. D., Luzzini, A. & Longoni (2015). Translating Stakeholder Pressures into Environmental Performance – the Mediating Role of Green HRM Practices. The International Journal of Human Resource Management. DOI:10.1080/09585192.201 5.1065431.
20. Hadjri, M., Perizade, B., Zunaidah, & Farla, W. (2019). Green Human Resource Management, Green Organizational Culture, and Environmental Performance: An Empirical Study. DOI: 10.2991/ icoi-19.2019.25.
