This review integrates green, sustainable, and environmental HRM practices, indicating their joint relevance to organizational sustainability.
Purpose This study aims to investigate the role of human resource management (HRM) strategies in advancing sustainability. It focuses on integrating green HRM (GHRM), sustainable HRM (SHRM) and environmental HRM (EHRM) into a unified tri-pillar framework. Rather than treating these domains separately, the study explores their combined relevance to long-term organizational goals. It also touches on broader socioeconomic influences. Design/methodology/approach A dual-method approach is adopted, combining bibliometric analysis with a systematic literature review (SLR). The bibliometric component maps key publications, trends and author networks, while the SLR offers conceptual depth by reviewing theoretical and practical developments. This blend provides a quantitative and qualitative perspective on the evolution of sustainable HRM. The review is theoretically based on stakeholder theory, resource-based theory and institutional theory to elucidate complementarities among three pillars of HRM. Findings The review outlines three central elements in sustainable HRM: green performance, environmental sustainability and employee empowerment. Though consumption trends are not deeply analyzed, they are briefly acknowledged as potential external influences. The focus remains on internal organizational strategies and their alignment with sustainability. Research limitations/implications The study is limited to peer-reviewed academic sources, excluding grey literature and real-time corporate practices. It also does not explore regional or sectoral differences in sustainable HRM, which may limit the generalizability of findings. Originality/value This research offers a novel conceptual synthesis by merging GHRM, SHRM and EHRM into a tri-pillar framework. While not exhaustive, it encourages further inquiry and practical reflection on aligning human resource functions with sustainability goals.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kumar et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: