Richards, J 2022, ‘Putting employees at the centre of sustainable HRM: A review, map and research
agenda’, Employee Relations: The International Journal, vol. 44, no. 3, pp. 533-554, DOI:10.1108/ER-
01-2019-0037.
WARNING
This material has been reproduced and communicated to you by or on behalf of Australian
Institute of Business pursuant to Part IVA Division 4 of the Copyright Act 1968 (the Act).
The material in this communication may be subject to copyright under the Act. Any
further reproduction or communication of this material by you may be the
subject of copyright protection under the Act.
Do not remove this notice.
Putting employees at the centre of
sustainable HRM: a review, map
and research agenda
James Richards
Edinburgh Business School, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, UK
Abstract
Purpose – Currently, sustainable HRM is largely an employer-driven exercise based on raising employee
productivity. The purpose of the article is to expand this position by fully mapping out sustainable HRM and
placing employees at the centre of such practices. A further purpose is to provide a research agenda suited to a
wider take on sustainable HRM.
Design/methodology/approach – The article centres on an analytical review of extant sustainable HRM
literature, plus an analytical review of wider literature considering further ways to sustain employment.
Findings – Employee-centred sustainable HRM goes far beyond what is accounted for in the extant HRM
literature. The new map accounts for wider parties to sustainable HRM, including trade unions and selforganised employees. An extensive research agenda is a further key output from the study.
Research limitations/implications – The article is based on a literature review. Follow-up empirical
research is required to test out aspects of the new map, as well as address research gaps identified by the
review.
Practical implications – The findings have practical implications for HRM and occupational health
practitioners, line managers, built environment and ergonomics specialists, governments, trade unions and
workplace activists. A key practical implication is the potential to create micro-forms of corporatism, where
wider political structures are absent, to foster employee-centred forms of sustainable HRM.
Originality/value – The article is novel in terms of drawing on a wide range of incongruous literature and
synthesising the literature into a new map and an extensive research agenda.
Keywords Sustainability, HRM, Industrial relations, Labour process, Map, Built environment, Sustainable
HRM, Research agenda, Sustainable working lives
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Sustainability in work organisations consists of employers playing their part in fixing
ecological, social and economic problems, with evidence suggesting employers are
increasingly willing to make their organisations more sustainable (Ehnert et al., 2016).
Sustainability in work organisations has increasingly become a feature of academic research.
The trend is evident with the rise of literature on sustainable (e.g., Ehnert, 2009; Jabbour and
Santos, 2008), green (e.g., Guerci et al., 2016; Renwick et al., 2013) and socially responsible (e.g.,
Shen, 2011; Voegtlin and Greenwood, 2016) forms of HRM.
This article, however, focuses on one aspect of the wider organisational sustainability
agenda—sustainable HRM, broadly defined as practices designed to make employees more
able and more willing to remain in employment at present and in the future (Van Vuuren and
Van Dam, 2013). Such practices emphasise employers fostering, rather than exploiting, their
workforces (Docherty et al., 2009). Key to sustainable HRM is mutual benefit for employers
and employees, as well as creating wider social benefit, including lower unemployment
(Zwicki et al., 2016), demand for out-of–work and in-work benefits (House of Commons, 2008)
and demand for healthcare related to work-related illness and disability (Koolhaas
et al., 2011).
A key aim of the article is to address a range of problems associated with the current and
dominant take on sustainable HRM—an approach that is employer- rather than employeecentred. A significant problem with the current literature concerns how the interests of two
Employees at
the centre of
sustainable
HRM
533
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/0142-5455.htm
Received 15 January 2019
Revised 20 May 2019
27 October 2019
Accepted 15 December 2019
Employee Relations: The
International Journal
Vol. 44 No. 3, 2022
pp. 533-554
© Emerald Publishing Limited
0142-5455
DOI 10.1108/ER-01-2019-0037
key parties to sustainable HRM—the employer and recent governments—are privileged over
that of employees, creating a problematic vision of sustainable HRM based on employer and
governmental interests, rather than on employee interests, and the capabilities of trade
unions and collective bargaining. This crop of literature adds greatly to understandings,
particularly in terms of demonstrating gains for organisations (e.g., Jerome, 2013; App et al.,
2012), yet these contributions represent an incomplete image of sustainable HRM. As such, it
is critical to revisit sustainable HRM, mainly because current understandings are remiss in
terms of acknowledging wider aspects of what makes employment sustainable for
employees. For instance, trade unions have a long history of winning better working
conditions for employees (Tuckman, 2018), and even in workplaces without trade unions, selforganised employees have a similar history of shaping unsustainable HRM practices
(Ackroyd and Thompson, 1999).
The danger is future understandings of sustainable HRM, without a revisionary agenda,
are likely to continue to reinforce a corporate profitability and corporate survival agenda
(Wilkinson et al., 2001), which in all probability will only serve to undermine attempts to make
organisations truly sustainable. As implied already, a second key problem is the extant
literature that neglects and underplays key parties to the employment relationship, such as
trade unions. Put another way, current understandings neglect literature based on industrial
relations and labour process traditions. Indeed, without engaging with such literature, a
meaningful vision of sustainable HRM seems unlikely. As such, the article aims to answer the
following questions. First, what are the many constituent features of sustainable HRM?
Second, how do the parties to the employment relationship feed into sustainable HRM? Third,
what does an employee-centred approach to sustainable HRM look like? Fourth, in the light of
key findings to come from this article, what are the priorities for further research on
sustainable HRM?
By addressing these questions, the article contributes to understandings of sustainable
HRM as follows. First, sustainable HRM will now be conceptualised in terms of being of
greater mutual benefit for employers and employees. Second, the new means to conceptualise
sustainable HRM recognises all parties to such practices, creating space in particular for
collectivised, self-organised and individualised labour. A further contribution comes in terms
of generating an extensive research agenda for sustainable HRM.
The article is structured as follows. First, the methodology is described and discussed.
Second, the extant literature on sustainable HRM is discussed. This discussion includes
attempts to variously define sustainable HRM, identify key features of sustainable HRM and
identify key features of this specific body of literature. Third, the discussion of sustainable
HRM is extended to include literature on industrial relations and labour process traditions. A
final section discusses key findings, represented mostly in the form of a new map of
sustainable HRM and an extensive associated research agenda.
Methodology
The methodology is broadly based on a systematic review/meta-analysis. Such an approach
requires an analysis of as many already existing studies as relevant (Thorpe et al., 2005). The
approach taken is suited to the aims of this study, as it is based on a reliable knowledge base
accumulated from a range of studies (Tranfield et al., 2003). Further, the approach adopted
allows the generation of new research ideas (Borenstein et al., 2009).
The article was approached in the following way. First, a literature search was conducted
using the following databases: Web of Knowledge, EbscoHost, Emerald, Wiley, JSTOR and
Cambridge Journals Online. The searches used the key terms ‘sustainability’ and ‘sustainable’
and were accompanied with further search terms: ‘employee’, ‘work’, ‘employment’ and
‘HRM’. Preliminary searches revealed literature from the year 2000 onwards. From then on,
ER
44,3
534
further refined and advanced searches concentrated on literature. Searches for literature
captured approximately 100 research items. After sifting, a range of literature was discarded,
principally as it was based on environmental or green issues, matters outwith the scope of the
study. Eventually, 64 specialised accounts of sustainable HRM were identified: journal
articles (n 5 41), books and edited book chapters (n 5 18) and reports (n 5 5).
Subsequently, the literature was analysed for key sustainable HRM themes. The analysis
was guided by two broad questions: what is meant by ‘sustainable’? What leads to
‘sustainability’? The analysis allowed the literature to be divided into three broad areas:
sustainable HRM related to built environment and ergonomics traditions, HRM and employee
engagement, and ‘sustainable working lives’. The three broad strands of literature were
analysed in terms of extracting key information based on definitions, main research findings,
type of article, as well as, where applicable, geographical location of study, employee group,
methodological approach and theoretical framing (see Figure 1).
Key themes to emerge from this stage of analysis (see Figure 1) were employee well-being,
quality of working life and equality. Such themes were used to inform further searches, using
the databases as previously detailed, and aimed at literature on industrial relations and
labour process traditions. The themes were used because they related to benefits for
employees (e.g., a better working life), employers (e.g., higher levels of productivity) and
governments (e.g., lowered demands for public welfare and healthcare systems). To be
consistent with the earlier approach, the second stage of the search also focused on literature
from the year 2000 onwards. The search resulted in the identification of research articles
indirectly related to sustainable HRM. The search was based on two approaches. First, given
Employees at
the centre of
sustainable
HRM
535
Studies of
sustainable HRM
Type of arcle
Empirical (n=25)
General review (n=33)
Systemac review (n=2)
Conceptual (n=4)
Locality of study
Europe (n=37)
Scandinavia (n=8)
North America (n=7)
Internaonal (n=6)
Developing countries (n=1)
None stated (n=5)
Methodological approach
Quantave (n=9)
Mixed/case study (n=7)
Qualitave (n=6)
Secondary data (n=4)
Experimental (n=2)
N/A (n=36)
Theorecal framing
Organisaonal behaviour (n=22)
Medical (n=18)
Sociological (n=8)
Economic (n=7)
Polical (n=1)
Built environment (n=2)
N/A (n=6)
Type of worker
Older employees (n=10)
Young employees (n=4)
Returners (n=6)
White-collar (n=7)
Women (n=4)
Disability (n=4)
Precarious (n=5)
Low skill/pay (n=2)
By occupaon (n=4)
Non-specific (n=18)
Figure 1.
Mapping the many
approaches to
researching
sustainable
HRM (n 5 64)
the association of trade unions with the field of industrial relations, the term ‘trade union’ and
key themes identified above were used to search for further relevant literature. Second, there
was a search for literature using the term ‘labour process’ and the same key sustainable HRM
themes. The second stage of the literature search resulted in the collection of a further 48
research items (all journal articles), or a wider total of 112 research items specifically selected
to further explore and map out sustainable HRM. The second crop of literature was divided
between industrial relations and studies of the labour process and analysed to identify similar
and further means by which sustainable HRM could be understood. Further key themes to
emerge included, for example, outcomes from collective employee representation and many
other ways to regulate the employment relationship.
Sustainable HRM: definitions, key findings and characteristics of extant
literature
This section follows the three broad strands of sustainable HRM literature identified in the
previous section. First, sustainable HRM is defined in a range of ways, with an emphasis on
establishing the nature of how such practice is defined. Second, key findings are discussed,
including problems associated with sustainable HRM. The emphasis is on highlighting the
many ways by which HRM is distinguishable from regular HRM practice. The second part
further highlights not only key strengths but also limitations to this body of knowledge.
Third, the discussion shifts to consider a wide range of defining features of the literature. The
aim here is to further and specifically identify gaps in the literature on sustainable HRM.
Defining sustainable HRM
The built environment and ergonomics literature principally defines sustainable HRM in
terms of raising employee productivity, although consideration is given to employee interests
in such situations. For example, employers can increase productivity by creating ‘intelligent
buildings’ (Clements-Croome, 2005), which boosts employee ‘happiness’, leading to a more
efficient interaction between the employee and the built environment (Smith and Pitt, 2009).
Sustainable HRM is defined in terms of employees accessing a more natural environment,
with employers better meeting the needs of the workforce (Gould, 2009). Employee needs are
met through comfortable spaces to work in, which inspire employees to be creative and take
less time off through sickness absence (Clements-Croome, 2005). Such practices also lead to
improved air quality with the use of plants (Smith and Pitt, 2009). By investing in an
environment of this kind, employers can reap the benefit of employees having their needs
satisfied on work time (Zink, 2014) and increased perceptions of well-being (Martin et al., 2013;
Smith and Pitt, 2009). Taken together, the outcome is a ‘win-win-situation’, based on the
strategic management of interdependencies and interrelations between employee activities
and the surrounding environment (Zink, 2014).
A second means to define sustainable HRM links with broader HRM practices and the
notion of employee engagement —employers finding ways of harnessing employees to their
work roles (Kumar and Kumar Sia, 2012). The employee engagement approach is also based
on the notion of both parties to the employment relationship benefitting from the practice of
sustainable HRM. However, the literature suggests such practices are problematic, as they
are principally aimed at raising employee productivity. In this instance, organisations foster
sustainable HRM largely through a range of increasingly common HRM practices, as well as
the critical input of HRM practitioners. As line managers are increasingly seen as the
‘guardians’ of human resources (Ehnert, 2009), such employees are increasingly more
responsible for implementing sustainable HRM policy (J€arlstr€om et al., 2018; Kramar, 2014). In
this instance, sustainable HRM concerns making workplaces inclusive through work–life
balance initiatives (Hirsch, 2009), flexible working practices (Atkinson and Sandiford, 2016),
ER
44,3
536
regulating working time to promote gender equality (Zbyszewska, 2013) and referral of
employees, where necessary, to occupational health (OH) services (Koolhaas et al., 2011).
Sustainable HRM is defined principally in terms of practices allowing employees to balance
wider commitments through flexible working arrangements (FWAs), based on varying
where and when employees work (Atkinson and Sandiford, 2016). A key aim is to make
sustainable HRM practices the norm, with, as noted above, line managers playing a key
enabling role in this process (Kramar, 2014). However, a further aim is to better understand
employees’ lives so that FWAs deliver for both employers and employees (Blake-Beard et al.,
2010). Sustainability is defined in terms of attempts to understand how working time is often
gendered, resulting in women, more than men, disengaged by long or inflexible working
arrangements (Zbyszewska, 2013). According to Bichard (2008), sustainable HRM practices
are, in effect, incorporating corporate social responsibility into everyday HRM practice
related to, for instance, training, performance review, recruitment, selection and job design.
A third competing definition relates the principles of social justice to HRM practice (Parkes
and Davis, 2013). Although also aimed at raising employee productivity, the third approach
aims to do so in a more humanistic and sustainable manner. A further key difference is
drawing on the input and expertise of a range of social partners, including governments, to
deliver benefits for both organisations and wider society (e.g., Van de Ven et al., 2014). This
approach could be compared to some sort of corporatist system of employment relations,
denoted by close cooperation between trade unions, employers and governments (J€arlstr€om
et al., 2018), leading to, for instance, better prepared new entrants and re-entrants to
employment markets (e.g., Akkermans et al., 2015), older employees willing to remain in
employment markets (Atkinson and Sandiford, 2016) and better treatment for disabled and
chronically ill employees (e.g., Williams et al., 2010). This third perspective is based on
attempts not only to solve organisational problems, but also to tackle wider societal problems
including, for example, in-work poverty (Richards and Sang, 2019) and the exclusion of
disabled employees from the workplace (Sang et al., 2016). More specifically, sustainable HRM
in this instance involves, for example, employers working with civil society organisations to
better manage an ageing workforce (Zientara, 2009), prevent premature retirements (Ahonen,
2015) and extend working lives (Koolhaas et al., 2011, 2013). Indeed, at the heart of such
practices is workplace healthcare promotion (Eriksson et al., 2017) and healthcare based on
joining up employer and government provisions (Hansen et al., 2013). A further angle on this
approach to sustainable HRM involves employers engaging with social policy initiatives
(McBride and Mustchin, 2013) to make workplaces disability friendly (Burdof and Schuring,
2015) and more inclusive for career entrants and career re-entrants (Wiese and Knecht, 2015)
and, wherever possible, all other non-mainstream groups (McCollum, 2012; Flude, 2000). In
brief, this perspective of sustainable HRM centres on a belief of causing no harm to employees,
with employees of all descriptions engaged, thriving and flourishing at work.
Key findings from studies on sustainable HRM
While sustainable HRM is defined in a range of ways, key findings reveal much more about
such practice. Findings from the field of the built environment and ergonomics include, for
example, how employees working in intelligent buildings mentioned liking their workplace,
feeling pride in their workplace surroundings, experiencing increased job satisfaction and
reporting fewer ailments (Gould, 2009). As with Gould’s study, Smith and Pitt (2009) found
smart buildings lift the mood of employees, leading to a positive mood and sense of wellbeing. Further studies (e.g., Smith and Pitt, 2011) realised intelligent buildings decreased the
risks associated with sick building syndrome and lowered the sense of pressures at work
(Gould, 2009; Smith and Pitt, 2009). Overall, research of this kind points towards increased
employee productivity, yet it also indicates how employees appreciate working in a better
designed work environment.
Employees at
the centre of
sustainable
HRM
537
However, a key issue raised in such literature is the limited influence of built environment
and ergonomics specialists in work settings. A key outcome, for example, is a low uptake of a
particular type of sustainable HRM practice (Martin et al., 2013). Zink (2014) believes, for
instance, the low status of built environment and ergonomics specialists relates to
organisational ignorance of the benefits of building and equipment design, coupled with
limited interest in adopting the principles of corporate social responsibility. The result is that
only the most progressive of employers seem to invest in such practices.
Studies from an HRM perspective clearly indicate how sustainable HRM is critical to
employer competitive advantage (App et al., 2012). App et al., for example, found sustainable
HRM to be key to attracting and retaining high-quality employees. In more specific terms,
employees, particularly those from non-mainstream groups, reported being treated more
equitably (Blake-Beard et al., 2010) and experienced less discrimination (Zientara, 2009).
Sustainable HRM has also been linked to reports of better treatment for a growing casualised
work force, with such practices helping to mitigate against global-wide trends in labour
market deregulation (Zhang et al., 2015). Further, multinational corporations have been linked
to such good practice, with organisations of this type influential in setting sustainable HRM
agendas in a wide range of international settings (Aust et al., 2019). Further benefits include
employees experiencing high levels of respect from line managers (J€arlstr€om et al., 2018),
resulting in an improved social and productive climate between employees and managers
(Jerome, 2013). In a more general sense, Ehnert et al. (2016) identified how sustainable HRM
leads to increased levels of health and safety, access to training to develop new and existing
skills, improved prospects in terms of work–family balance and access to high-quality jobs. In
effect, further supporting the view of HRM practitioners, of how the everyday work of line
managers (Ehnert, 2009), is central to achieving the goals of sustainable HRM. Overall,
sustainable HRM reflects a commitment to going beyond regular HRM practice.
Nevertheless, a range of downsides is associated with this version of sustainable HRM.
For example, Lund (2004) found sustainable HRM, as per regular HRM, is characterised by
‘hidden’ forms of scientific management, typically resulting in collective bargaining problems
for trade unions. In contrast to the work of Zhang et al. (2015), Blake-Beard et al.’s (2010)
research found sustainable HRM to be more commonly associated with attempts to motivate
highly skilled and better-paid employees, rather than making working life better for lower
skilled and low-paid occupational groups. On the whole, this form of sustainable HRM
represents a mixed bag and in particular highlights how a lack of employee representation is
likely to result in uneven outcomes in most work settings.
In the domain reflecting practices born out of organisational knowledge and the input of
corporatist or pseudo-corporatist arrangements (Van de Ven et al., 2014), there comes an
important range of findings. First of all, this form of sustainable HRM is significantly
different in nature from the previous two. For example, sustainable HRM is achieved through
employers engaging with welfare programmes aimed at reducing cycling between
employment and welfare (McCollum, 2012) and buying into interventions designed by
social partners to overcome the wider life traumas of the long-term unemployed (Flude, 2000).
However, other key findings reveal governments have the potential to undermine sustainable
HRM. For instance, some governments show a lack of willingness to intervene in problematic
employment markets (Vanroelen, 2017) and putting little pressure on employers to consider
long-term workforce development plans (McBride and Mustchin, 2013). Three further key
issues arose from these studies. Indeed, the management of well-being figured prominently in
such literature. Examples include employers developing healthcare initiatives, often
involving OH practitioners, to suit different types of employees, especially older employees
(Koolhaas et al., 2011; Hirsch, 2009), and health interventions designed with older employees
in mind, being made available for younger employees (Koolhaas et al., 2013). Key to the
success of these initiatives, however, is involving employees in the planning of health
ER
44,3
538
interventions (H€agglund et al., 2010), ideally with a supportive, responsive and inspiring line
manager (Shift, 2009), as well as recognising the wider importance of management leadership
in health promotion (Eriksson et al., 2017). A further key issue is the role of work and job
design in relation to sustainable HRM. Notable examples include the criticality of
teamworking (Hansen et al., 2013), reducing instances of work intensification (Vanroelen,
2017), work crafting (Kira et al., 2010) and attempts to evenly distribute how work is shared
out across not just the organisation, but also based on gender and wider employee
characteristics (Zwicki et al., 2016). The importance of recognising organisational culture in
sustainable HRM also figured in a small range of studies. Organisational culture is seen to be
an important factor in sustainable HRM because positive attitudes by colleagues towards
employees from marginal groups make sustainable HRM policies far more effective (Van
Dam et al., 2017; Nelissen et al., 2016), and attempts to nurture an inclusive culture can help
reduce negative stereotypes of groups least likely to achieve sustainable levels of
employment (Zientara, 2009). A further issue concerns how employer reluctance to train
employees has a negative impact on sustainable HRM (Hansen et al., 2013), especially in
relation to employee groups with the lowest levels of skills (House of Commons, 2008).
Overall, the literature suggests employers tend to put limits on the activities of social
partners, with governments often reluctant to intervene except in extreme circumstances.
The outcome is this approach to sustainable HRM is unlikely to achieve its full potential.
The many approaches to researching sustainable HRM
As can be observed by consulting Figure 1, only about 40 per cent of sustainable HRM articles
are based on an empirical approach (e.g., Salmela-Aro and Vuori, 2015; McBride and
Mustchin, 2013; Williams et al., 2012). As such, the majority of articles are based on deskbased research (e.g., Cleary et al., 2016; Berglund, 2015). In a broader sense, only a small
amount of such literature is based on systematic reviews (e.g., Martin et al., 2013; Jabbour and
Santos, 2008) or conceptual pieces (e.g., European Foundation for the Improvement of Living
and Working Conditions, 2015; Kira et al., 2010).
The research on sustainable HRM is evidently defined by geographical location, with
some clusters around certain parts of the world (see Figure 1). For instance, the majority of
studies were conducted in Europe more generally or specifically (e.g., Akkermans et al., 2015;
Docherty et al., 2009). However, a good range of studies has been conducted on an
international scale (e.g., Price, 2015; Smith and Pitt, 2011) in Scandinavian countries (e.g.,
Eriksson et al., 2017; J€arlstr€om et al., 2018) and North America (e.g., Blake-Beard et al., 2010;
Gould, 2009). Specific countries feature commonly in the literature, including the Netherlands
(e.g., Van Dam et al., 2017; Koolhaas et al., 2013), the UK (e.g., Atkinson and Sandiford, 2016;
McCollum, 2012) and Australia (e.g., Hansen et al., 2013; Williams et al., 2010). A much smaller
number of studies centre on, for example, Poland (Zientara, 2009), Belgium and Spain
(Vanroelen, 2017). However, only one study (Mannila, 2015) relates sustainable HRM to
developing countries, with no studies of such practices associated with India or Africa (Aust
et al., 2019). The geographical spread of studies suggests sustainable HRM is principally
practiced in countries with a history of corporatism, but variants on such practices can also be
found in countries that have moved away from corporatism.
No type or group of employees dominates the literature (see Figure 1). However, the most
common group reflected in the literature is older employees (e.g., Fuertes et al., 2013; Hirsch,
2009), representing approximately 15 per cent of all studies. Further groups attracting
research include young employees (e.g., Hanvold et al., 2016; H€arm€a, 2015), returners to
employment markets (e.g., Vanroelen, 2017; Wiese and Knecht, 2015), white collar managers
and employees of large organisations (e.g., Fuertes et al., 2013; Ehnert, 2009; ClementsCroome, 2005), women (e.g., Zbyszewska, 2013; Blake-Beard et al., 2010), disabled and
chronically ill employees (e.g., Nelissen et al., 2016; Koolhaas et al., 2011), workers employed in
Employees at
the centre of
sustainable
HRM
539
precarious employment (e.g., Berglund, 2015; De Witte et al., 2015) and employees caught in
cycles of unemployment and employment (e.g., McCollum, 2012; Flude, 2000). A further range
of literature draws attention to specific types and groups of employees. This research relates
sustainable HRM to healthcare employees (H€agglund et al., 2010), shift workers (Van de Ven
et al., 2014), low-skilled employees (House of Commons, 2008), low-paid employees (Devlin
and Gold, 2014) and agency employees (Zhang et al., 2015). Overall, there is a sense that
sustainable HRM is principally used by some employers to plug gaps in labour markets,
rather than a means to improve the quality of working life more generally.
No one methodological approach dominates empirical studies (see Figure 1). For example,
nine adopt a quantitative approach (e.g., Van Dam et al., 2017; Nelissen et al., 2016), seven a
mixed methods/case study approach (e.g., Smith and Pitt, 2009; Lund, 2004) and six are
defined by qualitative methods, including semi-structured interviews (e.g., Williams et al.,
2010; Zientara, 2009). A further and smaller range of articles is based on secondary data,
typically governmental data (e.g., Ahonen, 2015; Van de Ven et al., 2014), and content analysis
of employer documentation (e.g., Ehnert et al., 2016; Ehnert, 2009). Of note, however, is a range
of studies based on experimentation, concentrating specifically on preparing school leavers
for employment markets (Akkermans et al., 2015; Salmela-Aro and Vuori, 2015). On the whole,
it seems a lack of empirical research suggests there is plenty more to find out about
sustainable HRM, especially in terms of how employees experience and shape such practices.
How sustainable HRM is conceptualised varies considerably, although organisational
behaviour (OB) and medical/health-based/OH scholarly traditions are disproportionately
represented in the literature (see Figure 1). Indeed, articles of this kind represent more than 60
per cent of studies on sustainable HRM. Within this literature, OB approaches include the
application of reasoned action approach (Nelissen et al., 2016), integrative person approach
(Flude, 2000) and uncertainty navigation model (Sweeny and Ghane, 2015). Medical/healthbased/OH approaches applied include, for instance, theories based on inequalities in health
(Burdof and Schuring, 2015), work environment impact scale (Williams et al., 2010) and
hazard analysis (Van de Ven et al., 2014). An emphasis on OB and medical approaches seems
to further confirm how current understandings of sustainable HRM are principally based on
post-corporatist employment relations, where individualistic employment relations
command vastly more attention than their collective equivalents.
That said, wider theoretical frameworks are used to conceptualise sustainable HRM (see
Figure 1). Sociological theories, such as work systems (Docherty et al., 2009) and human
capital development (McBride and Mustchin, 2013), have been used to conceptualise
sustainable HRM. Economic approaches, on the other hand, appear strongly influenced by
theories related to labour markets (e.g., Mannila, 2015; Devlin and Gold, 2014). Further
approaches distinguishable from the wider crop of literature explore the political discourse of
sustainable HRM (Zbyszewska, 2013) and notions of the built environment (Gould, 2009;
Clements-Croome, 2005). Overall, it seems reasonable to suggest a wider range of theories
should be used to study sustainable HRM.
Widening the net: making employee interests the focus of sustainable HRM
Discussions so far reveal employer interests, often supported by governments, dominate the
extant sustainable HRM literature. If anything, the majority of the extant sustainable HRM
literature reflects the abandonment of corporatism from the early 1980s, whereby collective
bargaining was undermined in favour of individualistic work arrangements, particularly in
countries such as the USA and the UK (Bamber et al., 2011). The attention now shifts to
exploring sustainable HRM themes in relation to scholarly fields where employee interests
are privileged over employer agendas. Therefore, this section of the article considers trade
unions as key and under-recognised parties to sustainable HRM. Trade unions are included in
ER
44,3
540
this part of the article for three reasons. First, the extant literature is remiss in terms of
recognising how contemporary HRM practice reflects gains made over many decades by
labour movements. Second, the extant literature does not reflect the nature and role of
contemporary trade unions. Third, even when many advanced industrial nations have
abandoned or heavily diluted corporatist traditions, trade unions remain an important means
by which employee interests are brought to the attention of employers and governments.
This section also proposes employee self-organisation, typically through a variety of acts of
coping and micro-resistance, as a further key and under-recognised aspect of sustainable
HRM. The emphasis on self-organisation reflects, in part, the decline and marginalisation of
corporatism and trade unions and how self-organised practices represent further, yet
informal, means by which employers are reminded of employee interests in the modern era.
Industrial relations and sustainable HRM
A key feature of industrial relations literature is the unique contribution of trade unions in
supporting many groups of disadvantaged or non-core workers. Such support typically
comes via collective bargaining, including works councils and wider voice mechanisms.
Many contemporary employers may not see the activities of trade unions as beneficial, but
there seems little doubt that trade unions can play a central part in delivering sustainable
HRM outcomes. For instance, recent research reveals trade unions as facilitators of
employment for disabled employees (Richards and Sang, 2016) and having a positive
influence on employer disability practices (Bacon and Hoque, 2015). In terms of gender, trade
unions play a key role in narrowing gender pay gaps (McGuinness et al., 2011), lowering wage
discrimination (Triventi, 2013), leading on equal pay litigation (Guillaume, 2015) and
supporting employees facing domestic violence (Wibberley et al., 2018). Research further
indicates how trade unions question employer practices concerning the imposition of
compulsory retirement ages (Byford and Wong, 2016). Trade unions increasingly represent
and organise EU migrant workers (James and Karmowska, 2012), hyper-mobile migrants
(Bernsten and Lillie, 2014) and contingent employees (MacKenzie, 2010), all of which are
widely recognised as unsustainable forms of employment, yet typically off the radar of
mainstream HRM practice. It is also the case that embryonic trade unionism is an increasing
feature of sex work (Gall, 2007), with attempts to make employment more sustainable for
employees typically marginal or completely off the agenda of HRM practitioners.
The literature indicates a range of further ways trade unions can work with employers to
support sustainable HRM agendas. A key forum for such activity is works council, often firmlevel complements to national or sectoral bargaining arrangements (Grund and Schmitt,
2011). In such situations, trade unions use works council to increase levels of trust and
organisational justice for employees (Kougiannou et al., 2015), critical in terms of fostering
good, respectful and mutually productive employment relationships. It has been
demonstrated, moreover, how works council can contribute to job satisfaction, by directly
and indirectly affecting changes in work processes, the working environment and job context
(Grund and Schmitt, 2011).
In more general terms, employer–trade union partnership agreements have been linked
to lower employee turnover (Pohler and Luchak, 2015) and sickness absence (Goerke and
Pannenberg, 2015). Such arrangements lead to mutual positive outcomes when employers
seek to introduce new and notoriously difficult-to-manage annualised working (Ryan and
Wallace, 2016) and wider working time arrangements (Fagan and Walthery, 2011). Further
advantages of working in partnership come in terms of making corporate social
responsibility initiatives more effective (Harvey et al., 2017), supporting organisations
expanding into growing markets (e.g., green economy) and increasing opportunities for
employment levels and high-quality and highly paid jobs (Antonioli and Mazzanti, 2017).
Further, it has been demonstrated how trade unions can be drivers in organisational
Employees at
the centre of
sustainable
HRM
541
productivity (Vernon and Rogers, 2013), global economic growth (Lia, 2013) and addressing
insufficient economic demand (Kelly, 2015), all of which map neatly on to notions of
sustainable HRM.
There is a wider role for trade unions to play in sustainable HRM, particularly in terms of
decreasing the impact of employment on social benefits and public health systems. For
instance, trade unions are leaders in terms of influencing employers’ decisions related to
paying the ‘living wage’ (Prowse and Fells, 2016). Trade unions are also key actors in terms of
campaigning against low pay and wage stagnation (Kelly, 2015). Despite many changes in
how employers and governments make provisions for employees in retirement, trade unions
remain key in the protection of pension rights (Flynn et al., 2013) and the development of
occupational pension systems (Kuene, 2018). Further, employers, employees and wider
society stand to benefit from trade union practices designed to lead to learning partnerships
(Cassell and Lee, 2009) and an equalisation of training opportunities in organisations (Hoque
and Bacon, 2008). Taken together, it can be seen how trade unions represent a unique means
to lead, as well as directly and indirectly shape, sustainable HRM agendas.
Sustainable HRM and studies of the labour process
Much of contemporary labour process research is defined by accounts of self-organised
attempts to resist problematic people management practices. In other words, largely nonunionised employees act as understated yet key parties to subverting unsustainable HRM
practices. A range of themes emerge in terms of analysing labour process research in
relation to sustainable HRM. First, there are studies based on how self-organised employees
cope with unsustainable expectations from employers. Examples of employees coping in
difficult circumstances include deflecting the pressures of work by taking selective absence
and mentally reframing key parts of jobs (Clark and Thompson, 2015). In a further study,
line managers colluded with subordinates, offering employees ‘alternative’ leave options
when given strict procedures to manage sickness absence (Hadjisolomou, 2015). Further
studies reveal a range of mostly individualised forms of employee coping. Examples include
mental distancing (Sandiford and Seymour, 2011), fiddling with fixed times to make certain
aspects of the job tolerable (Lundberg and Karlsson, 2011) and the deployment of antiburnout tactics, including retreating to the bathroom to cry, talk to oneself, chat with friends,
talk on the phone, surf the Internet, stretching and simply doing nothing (Lindqvist and
Olsson, 2017).
Many studies of the labour process, however, provide accounts of employees resisting
HRM practices. Call centres feature prominently in such studies, with many studies
considering how tightly controlled labour processes and unsustainable forms of HRM
present a range of opportunities for employee resistance (McFadden, 2014). Further studies
consider front-line employee experiences of tightly controlled labour processes and how
experiences of this kind generate humour and minor acts of defiance, with such acts helping
to galvanise an autonomous shopfloor or team culture (Crowley et al., 2014; Korczynski,
2011; Richards and Kosmala, 2013; Taylor and Bain, 2003). Such is the impact of selforganised forms of resistance, and even in the most difficult of working environments,
research suggests management regimes come to accommodate employee attributes and
practices into their labour processes (Hastings and MacKinnon, 2017), thus making
employment sustainable. A wide range of other forms of self-organised employee resistance,
designed to take the harsher edges off difficult working conditions, is reflected in this type
of literature, for example, employees mirroring employer problematic behaviour (Laaser,
2016), spreading a lack of goodwill within and between teams (Ellway, 2013), slowing down
and moderating the pace expected in many aspects of production and service provisions
(Carey and Foster, 2011; Harris and Ogbonna, 2004) and foot-dragging as a means to cope
with the pace of work (Ybema and Horvers, 2017). The key issue is acts of this kind may be
ER
44,3
542
branded as ‘employee misbehaviour’, but, in another sense, may represent a range of key
practices many employees take to make employment sustainable. Practices of this kind
seem to emerge in situations where HRM practitioners or line managers have little control or
concern over practices designed to unfairly stretch worker capacity to perform.
A further key development involves employees increasingly taking to the Internet, most
specifically in terms of the use of social media and smart phones, to explore new and creative
forms of coping and new ways to express conflict and resistance (Richards, 2008). In the most
general sense, an evolving Internet brings a wide range of new advantages to sustain
employment for employees in an age of declining trade union influence (Richards, 2011). More
precisely, labour process research establishes the importance of social media platforms in
creating online coping communities, or spaces, making employment sustainable, which extend
far beyond any community organised in relation to the work-setting (Ellis and Richards, 2009;
Sayers and Fachira, 2015). In these situations, employees often self-organise on an
international basis, share details of work, share how they experience work and provide and
seek advice on work matters from each other (Cohen and Richards, 2015). Further research
highlights how taking to social media can lead to employees regaining a sense of control and
attachment to their occupational group or professional identity (Richards and Kosmala, 2013).
Some researchers go as far as to say such activities are more akin to ‘communities of
resistance’, where employees of anti-trade union organisations create or appropriate
discussion forums to share frustrations and expose inner workings of outwardly reputable
multinational corporations (Bancarzewski and Hardy, 2017). Indeed, research based on the
activities of employee bloggers reveals how activities of this kind act as counter-hegemonic
forces against corporate rhetoric (Schoneboom, 2007), effectively serving as a new and
emergent labour organising function (Schoneboom, 2011). The full range of ways employees
can self-organise appears to represent an important and emergent, yet neglected, facet of
sustainable HRM. What is more, acts seemingly based on employee defiance, combined with
traditional and emergent activities of trade unions, represent further means to achieve the
goals of sustainable HRM, a contribution rarely acknowledged by employers or governments.
Discussion and conclusions: towards a map and research agenda for employeecentred sustainable HRM
The aim of the article was to develop extant notions of sustainable HRM to better reflect
employee interests. As noted above, in one sense understanding sustainable HRM appears
straightforward—it concerns a way and means by which HRM practice develops and
oversees attempts to make sure employees are willing and able to stay in employment now
and for as long as reasonably possible (Van Vuuren and Van Dam, 2013) and foster, but not
exploit, workforces (Docherty et al., 2009) (see Figure 2). What is more, how employment can
be made more sustainable may well represent contested terrain, yet it seems attempts to make
employment more sustainable lead to benefits for all parties to the employment relationship.
Taken together, if HRM practice can create settings where employees are paid well, line
managers treat employees with respect and employees can expect good quality jobs
and benefit from some level of employer-led healthcare, then there will probably be a
neutral-to-minimal impact of HRM practice on public benefits and healthcare schemes
(see Figure 2). However, in another sense, it seems these assumptions represent only a surface
or partial understanding, with sustainable HRM, as evidenced in the first part of the review,
far from being a straightforward matter for HRM practitioners and line managers to
contemplate, suggesting sustainable HRM remains an aspiration for many employers and, in
some instances, a cynical and short-term attempt to engage employees. Such literature,
moreover, is very much influenced by ideological undertones of a post-corporatist era, where
notions of collective and centralised industrial relations systems and social partnership
Employees at
the centre of
sustainable
HRM
543
ER
44,3
544
Individual
employees
SUSTAINABLE HRM
Employees willing and able
to remain in employment
Foster workforce
Lowered impact on benefits
and healthcare systems
Social partnerships
Built Environment
Intelligent/smart buildings
Good air quality
Percepons of well-being
Comfortable work spaces
HRM
Flexible working pracces
Equality pracces
Respect from managers
High quality jobs
Recruitment and retenon
Sustainable Working Lives
Socially responsible
organisaons
Inclusive workplaces
Civil society organisaons
partnerships
Healthcare iniaves
Labour Process
Micro-resistance
Autonomous shopfloor
cultures
Coping pracces
Social media selforganisaon
Industrial Relaons
Shaping employer pracces
Supporng all employees
Reducing gender pay gaps
Partnership working
Works councils/voice and
bargaining mechanisms
HRM
praconers
and line
managers
Built
environment and
ergonomics
specialists
Governments
Trade
unions
Civil society
organisaons
Occupaonal
health and wider
health
professionals
Self-organised
employees
Figure 2.
Employee-centred
sustainable HRM
arrangements have been abandoned or ‘airbrushed’ out of contemporary practice,
representing in itself a barrier to employee-centred sustainable HRM.
In specific terms, the literature linked to the built environment revealed the following. The
findings from this facet of the article highlighted, for example, how built environment and
ergonomics specialists—via their expertise related to intelligent and smart buildings
(Clements-Croome, 2005), managing and monitoring air quality (Smith and Pitt, 2009),
building perceptions of well-being (Martin et al., 2013) and design of comfortable workspaces
(Clements-Croome, 2005)—make work pleasant, more productive and therefore more
sustainable (see Figure 2). Indeed, the built environment literature represents a distinct facet
to sustainable HRM. Such literature highlights a key role for built environment and
ergonomics specialists and concepts in sustainable HRM, but at the same time reveals a range
of important barriers to achieving the goals of sustainable HRM. One barrier is the low or
marginal status of built environment and ergonomics specialists in work settings (Zink,
2014). To overcome a barrier of this kind, it seems reasonable to say more research
highlighting the positive impact of built environment and ergonomics specialists is required,
but, in doing so, more needs to be done in terms of effectively feeding the findings back to
employers.
A second facet reveals how HRM practice and practitioners, increasingly including line
managers, hold a key and central status in the execution of effective sustainable HRM
practice. For instance (see Figure 2), the research clearly indicates how HRM practitioners and
line managers can play a key part in sustainable HRM via the introduction and effective
management of flexible working practices (Atkinson and Sandiford, 2016), equality practices
(Zbyszewska, 2013), nurturing of respectful employer–employee relations (J€arlstr€om et al.,
2018) and creation and design of high-quality jobs (Ehnert et al., 2016). However, the review
revealed a range of barriers to this aspect of sustainable HRM, including hidden and
alienating forms of work organisation (Lund, 2004) and discrimination against all but core
employees (Blake-Beard et al., 2010). Indeed, the findings indicate a need for more research to
explore how HRM practitioners and line managers work with trade unions and local staff
representatives, as well as non-union staff representatives, to execute effective forms of
sustainable HRM. It seems more research is also required in terms of how HRM practice can
be adapted to make employment sustainable for employees with low and marginal
organisational status.
The extant literature identified a range of further third parties, key to achieving the
central aims of sustainable HRM (see Figure 2). In this instance, while there is a clear
emphasis on the role of corporate social responsibility (Shen, 2011) in relation to these
practices, research revealed OH and wider health specialists (Eriksson et al., 2017; Koolhaas
et al., 2011), civil society organisations (Zientara, 2009) and governments (House of
Commons, 2008) to represent important parties to sustainable HRM. It seems there is some
overlap in the input of parties to this facet of sustainable HRM, but what sets this facet aside
is the criticality of a range of third parties to achieving sustainable HRM. This type of
research reveals how employers can work in partnership with various external
organisations, or under the legislative guidance of governments, to create workplaces
capable of reflecting the core characteristics of sustainable HRM (see Figure 2). However,
despite a range of research reflecting this facet of sustainable HRM, there appears to be scope
for more research contemplating the role of the employer in such practices, as research
revealed a further range of barriers to sustainable HRM in the form of employer reluctance to
engage with wider parties to the employment relationship (e.g., Hansen et al., 2013). Further
research should aim to better explain why employers hold contradictory views towards
sustainable HRM.
Trade unions represent a further and largely unrecognised party to sustainable HRM.
Principally centring on a more contemporary role for trade unions in the workplace, research
Employees at
the centre of
sustainable
HRM
545
reveals sustainable HRM to be achievable through, for example, influencing disability and
wider equality practices (Bacon and Hoque, 2015), supporting vulnerable employees (James
and Karmowska, 2012), putting pressure on employers to close gender pay gaps (McGuinness
et al., 2011) and generally working with employers through partnership agreements to deliver
many of the objectives of sustainable HRM (Pohler and Luchak, 2015) (see Figure 2). Largely
as a result of the decline of corporatism, the influence of trade unions in the workplace and
beyond has diminished on an international scale in recent times, and although trade unions
face a far from certain future, which is in itself a key barrier to sustainable HRM, it seems
trade unions retain a capacity to shape sustainable HRM practices beyond the organisations
they are recognised by. There appears to be a good range of research on such matters, but
more research should be undertaken to explore trade unions working in partnership with
employers to facilitate sustainable HRM. Doing so could help make a case for a return to a
wider use of collective bargaining arrangements and the rebuilding of corporatism.
A final emergent facet to sustainable HRM involved individual and self-organised
employees, as evidently noted in studies aligned to labour process traditions. In this instance,
employees act outwith the jurisdiction of employers, governments, OH and wider healthcare
practitioners, civil society organisations and, increasingly, trade unions. Indeed, what we see
here is research (see Figure 2) suggesting sustainable HRM can be achieved through microresistance (McFadden, 2014), attempts to create an autonomous shopfloor culture
(Korczynski, 2011), organic forms of labour organising (Schoneboom, 2011), coping
practices (Cohen and Richards, 2015) and the appropriation of social media platforms
(Schoneboom, 2007). While these activities are unlikely to be viewed by many HRM
practitioners and line managers in the same light, acts of this kind have not historically been
researched in terms of contributing to sustainable HRM. This appears an oversight, as these
practices appear to fill or relate to gaps previously identified in the article, particularly in
terms of the rhetorical side of sustainable HRM practice (Wilkinson et al., 2001) and how the
best features of sustainable HRM are typically reserved for core employees (Blake-Beard
et al., 2010). It is also evident how there is not a short supply of research indirectly looking at
sustainable HRM aspects of the labour process. However, it is fair to say more research could
be directed towards a better integration of labour process theories into how sustainable HRM
is both understood and practised. Specifically, more research, as stated above, should aim to
explore how self-organised employees could be a key—yet, until now, under-explored
means—to achieve an employee-centred model of sustainable HRM.
As noted in Figure 2, employee-centred sustainable HRM seems only achievable if the
many direct and indirect parties to the employment relationship work together, ideally as
social partners (see Figure 2). Indeed, to be truly effective, sustainable HRM requires, at the
very least, some form of micro-level corporatism. For many HRM practitioners and line
managers, particularly in countries such as the UK or the USA, such a perspective is unlikely
to be accepted without a significant change in attitude towards how the employment
relationship is managed on a day-to-day basis. That is, there is likely to be resistance to
ceding a degree of power in the day-to-day management of employees, but in return, there is
likely to be sustainable gains in terms of employee commitment, engagement and
productivity. However, without a wider political compulsion to engage in at least microforms of corporatism, it seems many employers will need to lead on such matters, effectively
inviting a range of parties to the employment relationship, to work on making employment
sustainable. As such, a final specific research gap concerns researching micro-corporatist
contexts, ideally using participatory and democratic forms of action research, to develop
practical knowledge in the pursuit of worthwhile human purposes (Reason and
Bradbury, 2008).
In broader and general terms, the review reveals a wide range of further research
priorities (see Figure 1), not least because of the many mutual benefits achievable via
ER
44,3
546
sustainable forms of HRM. First, there is scope for more empirical and/or conceptual
research on sustainable HRM. Second, extant research is dominated by advanced industrial
settings, suggesting far more research needs to be conducted on sustainable HRM in relation
to industrialising contexts (Aust et al., 2019). Third, research is required on a wider range of
occupational and professional employee groups than at present. Fourth, extant research,
specifically on sustainable HRM, seems biased towards quantitative methods and aligned
positivist paradigms, suggesting future research should involve more use of qualitative
methods and wider research paradigms. Fifth, as much of the sustainable HRM research
seems dominated by OB and OH perspectives, more should be done in terms of designing
future research based on key industrial relations and labour process themes, including
works councils, collective bargaining and employee coping mechanisms and acts of microresistance.
Overall, sustainable HRM is a well-researched topic across the many sub-fields of HRM
and employment-related studies. However, on closer inspection, it is evident how there is clear
scope for more research based on further conceptualising and exploring the many finer,
hidden, interlinked, yet key facets to achieving employee-centred sustainable HRM.
References
Ackroyd, S. and Thompson, P. (1999), Organisational Misbehaviour, Sage, London.
Antonioli, D. and Mazzanti, M. (2017), “Towards a green economy through innovations: the role of
trade involvement”, Ecological Economics, Vol. 131, pp. 286-299.
Ahonen, G. (2015), “The economy of sustainable careers during the work life course: a case from
Finland”, in Vuori, J., Blonk, R. and Price, R. (Eds), Sustainable Working Lives Managing Work
Transitions and Health throughout the Life Course (Aligning Perspectives on Health, Safety and
Well-Being), SpringerLink, London, pp. 35-48.
Akkermans, J., Nyk€anen, M. and Vuori, J. (2015), “Practice makes perfect? Antecedents and
consequences of an adaptive school-to-work transition”, in Vuori, J., Blonk, R. and Price, R.
(Eds), Sustainable Working Lives Managing Work Transitions and Health throughout the Life
Course (Aligning Perspectives on Health, Safety and Well-Being), SpringerLink, London,
pp. 65-86.
Atkinson, C. and Sandiford, P. (2016), “An exploration of older worker flexible working arrangements
in smaller firms”, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 12-28.
Aust, I., Muller-Camen, M. and Poutsma, E. (2019), “Sustainable HRM: a comparative and
international perspective”, in Brewster, C., Mayrhofer, W. and Farndale, E. (Eds), Handbook of
Research on Comparative Human Resource Management, 2nd ed., Edward Elgar, Cheltenham,
pp. 358-369.
App, S., Merk, J. and Buttgen, M., (2012), € “Employer branding: sustainable HRM as a competitive
advantage in the market for high-quality employees”, Management Revue, Vol. 23 No. 3,
pp. 262-278.
Bacon, N. and Hoque, K. (2015), “The influence of trade union Disability Champions on employer
disability policy and practice”, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 25 No. 2,
pp. 233-249.
Bamber, G., Lansbury, R. and Wailes, N. (2011) (Eds), International and Comparative Employment
Relations: Globalisation and Change, 5th ed., Sage, London.
Bancarzewski, M. and Hardy, J. (2017), “‘Communities of resistance’ and the use of newspaper
discussion boards: Polish workers in Japan’ese foreign investments”, New Technology, Work
and Employment, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 160-173.
Berglund, T. (2015), “Flexicurity, job insecurity, and well-being in European Labor Markets”, in Vuori,
J., Blonk, R. and Price, R. (Eds) (2015), Sustainable Working Lives Managing Work Transitions
Employees at
the centre of
sustainable
HRM
547
and Health throughout the Life Course (Aligning Perspectives on Health, Safety and Well-Being),
SpringerLink, London, pp. 145-167.
Bernsten, L. and Lillie, N. (2014), “Hyper-mobile migrant workers and Dutch trade union
representation strategies at the Eemshaven construction sites”, Economic and Industrial
Democracy, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 171-187.
Bichard, E. (2008), “Creating a healthy working environment through sustainable practices: future
challenges”, in Cartwright, S. and Cooper, C. (Eds), The Oxford Handbook of Organizational
Well Being, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 542-562.
Blake-Beard, S., O’Neill, R., Ingols, C. and Shapiro, M. (2010), “Social sustainability, flexible work
arrangements and diverse women”, Gender in Management: International Journal, Vol. 25 No. 5,
pp. 408-425.
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L., Higgins, J. and Rothstein, H. (2009), Introduction to Meta-Analysis, Wiley,
Chichester.
Burdof, A. and Schuring, M. (2015), “Poor health as cause and consequence or prolonged
unemployment: mechanisms, interventions, and Policy Recommendations”, in Vuori, J.,
Blonk, R. and Price, R. (Eds), Sustainable Working Lives Managing Work Transitions and
Health throughout the Life Course (Aligning Perspectives on Health, Safety and Well-Being),
SpringerLink, London, pp. 215-227.
Byford, I. and Wong, S. (2016), “Union formation and worker resistance in a multinational: a personal
account of an Asian cabin crew member in UK civil aviation”, Work, Employment and Society,
Vol. 30 No. 6, pp. 1030-1038.
Carey, M. and Foster, V. (2011), “Introducing ‘deviant’ social work: contextualising the limits of radical
social work whilst understanding (fragmented) resistance within the social work labour
process”, The British Journal of Social Work, Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 576-593.
Cassell, C. and Lee, B. (2009), “Trade union learning representatives: Progressing partnership?”, Work,
Employment and Society, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 213-230.
Clark, I. and Thompson, A. (2015), “Healthcare assistants: distribution losses as a consequence of NHS
modernisation?”, New Technology, Work and Employment, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 209-221.
Clements-Croome, D. (2005), “Designing the indoor environment for people, architectural engineering
and design management”, Architectural Engineering and Design Management, Vol. 1 No. 1,
pp. 45-55.
Cleary, M., Sayer, J., Lopez, V. and Hungerford, C. (2016), “Boredom in the workplace: reasons, impact,
and solutions”, Issues in Mental Health Nursing, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 83-89.
Cohen, N. and Richards, J. (2015), “‘I didn’t feel like I was alone anymore’: evaluating self-organised
employee coping practices conducted via Facebook”, New Technology, Work and Employment,
Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 222-236.
Crowley, M., Payne, J. and Kennedy, E. (2014), “Working better together? Empowerment, panopticon
and conflict approaches to teamwork”, Economic and Industrial Democracy, Vol. 35 No. 3,
pp. 483-506.
Devlin, D. and Gold, J. (2014), “Re-conceptualising talent management and development within the
context of low pay”, Human Resource Development International, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 514-528.
De Witte, H., Vander Elst, T. and De Cuyper, N. (2015), “Job security, health and well-being”, in Vuori,
J., Blonk, R. and Price, R. (Eds) (2015), Sustainable Working Lives Managing Work Transitions
and Health throughout the Life Course (Aligning Perspectives on Health, Safety and Well-Being),
SpringerLink, London, pp. 109-128.
Docherty, P., Kira, M. and Shami, A. (2009), “What the world needs now is sustainable work systems”,
in Docherty, P., Kira, M. and Shami, A. (Eds), Creating Sustainable Work Systems: Developing
Social Sustainability, Routledge, London, pp. 1-32.
Ehnert, I. (2009), Sustainable Human Resource Management: A Conceptual and Exploratory Analysis
from a Paradox Perspective (Contributions to Management Science), Springer, Heidelberg.
ER
44,3
548
Ehnert, I. Parsa, S., Roper, I., Wagner, M. and Muller-Camen, M. (2016), “Reporting on sustainability
and HRM: a comparative study of sustainability reporting practices by the world’s largest
companies”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 27 No. 1,
pp. 88-108.
Ellis, V. and Richards, J. (2009), “Creating, connecting and correcting: motivations and meanings for
work-blogging amongst public service workers?”, in Bolton, S. and Houlihan, M. (Eds), Work
Matters: Critical Reflections on Contemporary Work, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke,
pp. 205-268.
Ellway, B. (2013), “Making it personal in a call centre: electronic peer surveillance”, New Technology,
Work and Employment, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 37-50.
Eriksson, A., Orvik, A., Strandmark, M., Nordsteien, A. and Torp, S. (2017), “Management and
leadership approaches to health promotion and sustainable workplaces: a scoping review”,
Societies, Vol. 17 No. 14.
European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (2015), Sustainable
Work over the Life Course: Concept Paper, Publications Office of the European Union,
Luxembourg.
Fagan, C. and Walthery, P. (2011), “Individual working-time adjustments between full-time and parttime working in European firms”, Social Politics, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 269-299.
Flude, R. (2000), “The journey into work – an innovative approach to tackling long-term youth
unemployment”, Education þ Training, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 6-16.
Flynn, M., Upchurch, M., Mullen-Camen, M. and Schroder, H. (2013), “Trade union responses to ageing
workforces in the UK and Germany”, Human Relations, Vol. 66 No. 1, pp. 45-64.
Fuertes, V., Egbell, V. and McQuaid, R. (2013), “Extending working lives: age management in SMEs”,
Employee Relations, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 272-293.
Gall, G. (2007), “Sex worker unionisation: an exploratory study of emerging collective organisation”,
Industrial Relations Journal, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 70-88.
Goerke, L. and Pannenberg, M. (2015), “Trade union membership and sickness absence: evidence from
a sick pay reform”, Labour Economics, Vol. 33 April, pp. 13-25.
Grund, C. and Schmitt, A. (2011), “Works councils, wages and job satisfaction”, Applied Economics,
Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 299-310.
Guerci, M., Longoni, A. and Luzzini, D. (2016), “Translating stakeholder pressures into environmental
performance – the mediating role of green HRM practices”, The International Journal of Human
Resource Management, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 262-289.
Guillaume, C. (2015), “Understanding the variations of unions’ litigation strategies to promote
equal pay: reflection on the UK case”, Cambridge Journal of Economics, Vol. 39 No. 2,
pp. 363-379.
Gould, J. (2009), “Sustainable workplace design creates innovation opportunities”, Buildings, Vol. 103
No. 7, pp. 60-62.
Hadjisolomou, A. (2015), “Managing attendance at work: the role of line managers in the UK grocery
retail sector”, Employee Relations, Vol. 37, pp. 442-458.
H€agglund, K., Hesling, C. and Sandmark, H. (2010), “Assistant nurses working in care of older people:
associations with sustainable working ability”, Scandinavian Journal of Caring Studies, Vol. 25
No. 4, pp. 325-332.
Hanvold, T., Kines, P. Nyk€anen, M., Olafsd ottir, S., Thomee, S., Holte, K., Vuori, J., Wærsted, M. and
Veiersted, K. (2016), Young Workers and Sustainable Work Life: Special Emphasis on Nordic
Conditions, Nordic Council of Ministers, Denmark.
Hansen, S., Pit, P., Honeyman, P. and Barclay, L. (2013), “Prolonging a sustainable working life
among rural GPs: solutions from horse’s mouth”, Rural and Remote Health, Vol. 13 No. 2,
p. 2369.
Employees at
the centre of
sustainable
HRM
549
H€arm€a, M. (2015), “Promoting older workers’ job retention and health by working hour patterns”, in
Vuori, J., Blonk, R. and Price, R. (Eds.) (2015), Sustainable Working Lives Managing Work
Transitions and Health throughout the Life Course (Aligning Perspectives on Health, Safety and
Well-Being), SpringLink, London, pp. 249-268.
Harris, L. and Ogbonna, E. (2004), “Service sabotage: a study of antecedents and consequences”,
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 543-558.
Harvey, G., Hodder, A. and Brammer, S. (2017), “Trade union participation in CSR deliberation: an
evaluation”, Industrial Relations Journal, Vol. 48 No.1, pp. 42-55.
Hastings, T. and MacKinnon, D. (2017), “Re-embedding agency at the workplace scale: workers and
labour process control in Glasgow call centres”, Environment and Planning A: Economy and
Space, Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 104-120.
Hirsch, D. (2009), “Sustaining working lives: the challenge of retention”, in Loretto, W., Vickerstaff, S.
and White, P. (Eds), The Future for Older Workers: New Perspectives, Policy, Bristol,
pp. 103-120.
Hoque, K. and Bacon, N. (2008), “Trade unions, union learning representatives and employer-provided
training in Britain”, British Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 46 No. 4, pp. 702-731.
House of Commons (2008), Sustainable Employment: Supporting People to Stay in Work and Advance,
House of Commons, London.
Jabbour, C. and Santos, F. (2008), “The central role of human resource management in the search for
sustainable organizations”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 19
No. 12, pp. 2133-2154.
J€arlstr€om, M., Saru, E. and Vanhala, S. (2018), “Sustainable human resource management with salience
of stakeholders: a top management perspective”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 152 No. 3,
pp. 703-724.
James, P. and Karmowska, J. (2012), “Unions and migrant workers: strategic challenges in Britain”,
Transfer, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 201-212.
Jerome, N. (2013), “Impact of sustainable human resource management and organizational
performance”, International Journal of Asian Social Science, Vol. 3 No. 6, pp. 1287-1292.
Kelly, J. (2015), “Trade union membership and power in comparative perspective”, The Economic and
Labour Relations Review, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 526-544.
Kira, M., Eijnatten, F. and Balkin, D. (2010), “Crafting sustainable work: development of personal
resources”, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 616-632.
Kougiannou, K., Redman, T. and Dietz, G. (2015), “The outcomes of works councils: the role of trust,
justice and industrial relations climate”, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 25 No. 4,
pp. 458-477.
Koolhaas, W., Van der Klink, J., Groothoff, J. and Brouwer, S. (2011), “Towards a sustainable healthy
working life: associations between chronological age, functional age and work outcome”, The
European Journal of Public Health, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 424-429.
Koolhaas, W., Jac, J., Van der Klink, J., Vervoort, J., de Boer, M., Brouwer, S. and Groothof, J. (2013),
“In-depth study of the workers’ perspectives to enhance sustainable working life: comparison
with workers with and without a chronical mental condition”, Journal of Occupational
Rehabilitation, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 170-179.
Korczynski, M. (2011), “The dialectical sense of humour: routine joking in a Taylorised factory”,
Organization Studies, Vol. 32 No. 10, pp. 1421-1439.
Kramar, R. (2014), “Beyond strategic human resource management: is sustainable human resource
management the next approach?”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management,
Vol. 25 No. 8, pp. 1069-1089.
Kuene, M. (2018), “Opportunity or threat? How trade union power and preferences shape occupational
pensions”, Social Policy & Administration, Vol. 52 No. 2, pp. 463-476.
ER
44,3
550
Kumar, R. and Kumar Sia, S. (2012), “Employee engagement: explicating the contribution of working
environment”, Management and Labour Studies, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 31-43.
Laaser, K. (2016), “‘If you are having a go at me, I am having a go at you’: the changing nature of
social relationships of bank work under performance management”, Work, Employment and
Society, Vol. 30 No. 6, pp. 1000-1016.
Lia, C. (2013), “Trade u’nion and global economic growth”, Global Economic Review, Vol. 42 No. 2,
pp. 168-181.
Lindqvist, M. and Olsson, E. (2017), “Everyday resistance in psychiatry through harbouring
strategies”, Journal of Political Power, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 200-218.
Lund, H. (2004), “Strategies for sustainable business and the handling of workers’ interests: integrated
management systems and worker participation”, Economic and Industrial Democracy, Vol. 25
No. 1, pp. 41-74.
Lundberg, H. and Karlsson, J. (2011), “Under the clean surface: working as a hotel attendant”, Work,
Employment and Society, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 141-148.
MacKenzie, R. (2010), “Why do contingency workers join a trade union? Evidence from the Irish
telecommunications sector”, European Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 16 No. 2,
pp. 153-168.
McBride, A. and Mustchin, S. (2013), “Creating sustainable employment opportunities for the
unemployed”, Policy Studies, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 342-359.
McCollum, D. (2012), “The sustainable employment policy agenda: what role for employers?”, Local
Economy, Vol. 27 No. 5-6, pp. 529-540.
McFadden, P. (2014), “The production of politics in front-line service work: “Body work” in the labour
process of the call centre worker”, Global Society, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 89-106.
McGuinness, S., Kelly, E., O’Connell, P. and Callan, T. (2011), “The impact of wage bargaining and
worker preferences on the gender pay gap”, European Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 17
No. 3, pp. 277-293.
Mannila, S. (2015), “Informal employment and vulnerability in less developed markets”, in Vuori, J.,
Blonk, R. and Price, R. (Eds) (2015), Sustainable Working Lives Managing Work Transitions and
Health throughout the Life Course (Aligning Perspectives on Health, Safety and Well-Being),
SpringLink, London, pp. 17-33.
Martin, K., Legg, S. and Brown, S. (2013), “Designing for sustainability: ergonomic – carpe diem”,
Ergonomics, Vol. 56 No. 3, pp. 365-388.
Nelissen, P., Hulsheger, U. Ruitenbeek, G. and Zijlstra, F. (2016), } “How and when stereotypes relate to
inclusive behavior toward people with disabilities”, The International Journal of Human
Resource Management, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 1610-1625.
Parkes, C. and Davis, A. (2013), “Ethics and social responsibility – do HR professionals have the
‘courage to challenge’ or are they set to be permanent ‘bystanders?’”, The International Journal
of Human Resource Management, Vol. 24 No. 12, pp. 2411-2434.
Pohler, D. and Luchak, A. (2015), “Are unions good or bad for organizations? The moderating role of
management’s response”, British Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 53 No. 3, pp. 423-459.
Price, R. (2015), “Changing life trajectories, employment challenges and worker health in global
perspective”, in Vuori, J., Blonk, R. and Price, R. (Eds) (2015), Sustainable Working Lives
Managing Work Transitions and Health throughout the Life Course (Aligning Perspectives on
Health, Safety and Well-Being), SpringLink, London, pp. 3-16.
Prowse, P. and Fells, R. (2016), “The Living Wage – policy and practice”, Industrial Relations Journal,
Vol. 47 No. 2, pp. 144-162.
Reason, P. and Bradbury, H. (2008), The SAGE Handbook of Action Research, 2nd ed., Sage, London.
Renwick, W., Redman, T. and Maguire, S. (2013), “Green human resource management: a review and
research agenda”, International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 1-14.
Employees at
the centre of
sustainable
HRM
551
Richards, J. (2008), “The many approaches to organisational misbehaviour”, Employee Relations,
Vol. 30 No. 6, pp. 653-678.
Richards, J. (2011), “What has the internet ever done for employees? A review, map and research
agenda”, Employee Relations, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 22-43.
Richards, J. and Kosmala, K. (2013), “‘In the end, you can only slag people off for so long’: employee
cynicism through work blogging”, New Technology, Work and Employment, Vol. 28 No. 1,
pp. 66-77.
Richards, J. and Sang, K. (2016), “Trade unions as employment facilitators for disabled employees”, The
International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 27 No. 14, pp. 1642-1661.
Richards, J. and Sang, K. (2019), “The intersection of disability and in-work poverty in an advanced
industrial nation: the lived experience of multiple disadvantage in a post-financial crisis UK”,
Economic and Industrial Democracy, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 636-659.
Ryan, L. and Wallace, J. (2016), “Annual hours, workplace partnerships and mutual gains: exploring
the links”, Employee Relations, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 248-266.
Sandiford, P. and Seymour, D. (2011), “Reacting to the demands of service work: emotional resistance
in the coaching inn company”, The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 31 No. 8, pp. 1195-1217.
Sang, K., Richards, J. and Marks, A. (2016), “Gender and disability in male-dominated occupations: a
social relational model”, Gender, Work and Organization, Vol. 23 No. 6, pp. 566-581.
Salmela-Aro, K. and Vuori, J. (2015), “School engagement and burnout among students: preparing
for work life”, in Vuori, J., Blonk, R. and Price, R. (Eds) (2015), Sustainable Working Lives
Managing Work Transitions and Health throughout the Life Course (Aligning Perspectives on
Health, Safety and Well-Being), SpringLink, London, pp. 51-64.
Sayers, J. and Fachira, I. (2015), “Telling tales: online comic and gripe story-sharing by service
workers about difficult customers”, New Technology, Work and Employment, Vol. 30 No. 2,
pp. 128-144.
Schoneboom, A. (2007), “Diary of a working boy: creative resistance among anonymous
workbloggers”, Ethnography, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 403-423.
Schoneboom, A. (2011), “Sleeping giants? Fired workbloggers and labour organisation”, New
Technology, Work and Employment, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 17-28.
Shen, J. (2011), “Developing the concept of socially responsible international human resource
management”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 22 No. 6,
pp. 1351-1363.
Shift (2009), Line Managers’ Resource: A Practical Guide to Managing and Supporting People with
Mental Health Problems in the Workplace, Shift, London.
Smith, A. and Pitt, M. (2009), “Sustainable workplaces: improving staff health and wellbeing using
plants”, Journal of Corporate Real Estate, Vol. 11 No.1, pp. 52-63.
Smith, A. and Pitt, M. (2011), “Sustainable workplaces and building user satisfaction”, Journal of
Corporate Real Estate, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 144-156.
Sweeny, K. and Ghane, A. (2015), “Principles for effective coping in work-related uncertain situations”,
in Vuori, J., Blonk, R. and Price, R. (Eds) (2015), Sustainable Working Lives Managing Work
Transitions and Health throughout the Life Course (Aligning Perspectives on Health, Safety and
Well-Being), SpringLink, London, pp. 129-143.
Taylor, P. and Bain, P. (2003), “Subterranean work sick blues? Humour as subversion in two call
centres”, Organization Studies, Vol. 24 No. 9, pp. 1487-1509.
Thorpe, R., Holt, R., Macpherson, A. and Pittaway, L. (2005), “Using knowledge within small and
medium-sized firms: a systematic review of the evidence”, International Journal of Management
Reviews, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 257-281.
Triventi, M. (2013), “The gender wage gap and its institutional context: a comparative analysis of
European graduates”, Work, Employment and Society, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 563-580.
ER
44,3
552
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D. and Smart, P. (2003), “Towards a methodology for developing evidenceinformed management knowledge by means of systematic review”, British Journal of
Management, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 207-222.
Tuckman, A. (2018), Kettling the Unions? A Guide to the Trade Union Act 2016, Spokesman,
Nottingham.
Vanroelen, C. (2017), “Longer working careers and sustainable work: the issue of social responsibility”,
Society, Health and Vulnerability, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 9-13.
Van Dam, K., Van Vuuren, T. and Kemps, S. (2017), “Sustainable employment: the importance of
intrinsically valuable work and an age-supportive climate”, The International Journal of Human
Resource Management, Vol. 28 No. 17, pp. 2449-2472.
Van Vuuren, T. and Van Dam, K. (2013), “Sustainable employment by vitalizing: the importance of
development opportunities and challenging work for workers’ sustainable employability”, in De
Lange, A. and Van der Hejiden, B. (Eds), Life-long Employability? Perspectives on Sustainable
Employment at Work: Intervention and Best Practice, Vakmedianet, Alphen san de Rijn,
pp. 357-376.
Van de Ven, H., Klein Hesselink, J., Bultmann, U., De Boer, M. De Looze, M., Van der Klink, J. and €
Brouwer, S. (2014), “Individual and work-related predictors of work outcomes related to
sustainable employment among male shift and day workers”, Scandinavian Journal of Work,
Environment and Health, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 287-294.
Vernon, G. and Rogers, M. (2013), “Where do unions add value? Predominant and organizing
principle, union strength and manufacturing productivity growth in OECD”, British Journal of
Industrial Relations, Vol. 51 No. 1, pp. 1-27.
Voegtlin, C. and Greenwood, M. (2016), “Corporate social responsibility and human resource
management: a systematic review and conceptual analysis”, Human Resource Management
Review, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 181-197.
Wibberley, G., Bennett, T., Jones, C. and Hollinrake, A. (2018), “The role of trade unions in supporting
victims of domestic violence in the workplace”, Industrial Relations Journal, Vol. 49 No. 1,
pp. 69-85.
Wiese, B. and Knecht, B. (2015), “Socialization into organizations and balancing work and family”, in
Vuori, J., Blonk, R. and Price, R. (Eds) (2015), Sustainable Working Lives Managing Work
Transitions and Health throughout the Life Course (Aligning Perspectives on Health, Safety and
Well-Being), SpringLink, London, pp. 87-105.
Wilkinson, A., Hill, M. and Gollan, P. (2001), “The sustainability debate”, International Journal of
Operations and Production Management, Vol. 21 No. 12, pp. 1492-1502.
Williams, A., Fossey, E. and Harvey, C. (2010), “Sustaining employment in a social firm: use of the
work environment impact scale V2.0 to explore views of employees with psychiatric
disabilities”, The British Journal of Occupational Therapy, Vol. 73 No. 11, pp. 531-539.
Williams, A., Fossey, E. and Harvey, C. (2012), “Social firms: sustainable employment for people with
mental illness”, Work, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 53-62.
Ybema, S. and Horvers, M. (2017), “Resistance through compliance: the strategic and subversive
potential of frontstage and backstage resistance”, Organization Studies, Vol. 38 No. 9,
pp. 1233-1251.
Zbyszewska, A. (2013), “The European union working time directive: securing minimum
standards, with gendered consequences”, Women’s Studies International Forum, Vol. 39
July, pp. 30-41.
Zientara, P. (2009), “Employment of older workers in Polish SMEs: employer attitudes and
perceptions, employee motivation and expectations”, Human Resource Development
International, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 135-153.
Zink, K. (2014), “Designing sustainable work systems: the need for a systems approach”, Applied
Ergonomics, Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 126-132.
Employees at
the centre of
sustainable
HRM
553
Zhang, M., Bartram, T., McNeil, N. and Dowling, P. (2015), “Towards a research agenda on the
sustainable and socially responsible management of agency workers through a flexicurity
model of HR”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 127 No. 3, pp. 513-523.
Zwicki, K., Disslbacher, F. and Stagl, S. (2016), “Work-sharing for a sustainable economy”, Ecological
Economics, Vol. 121 January, pp. 246-253.
Further reading
Ehnert, I. Harry, W. and Brewster, C. (2013), “Sustainable HRM in Europe: diverse contexts and
multiple bottom lines”, in Ehnert, I., Harry, W. and Zink, K. (Eds), Sustainability and Human
Resource Management Developing Sustainable Business Organizations, Springer, London,
pp. 339-358.
About the author
Dr. James Richards is an associate professor in Human Resource Management in the Edinburgh
Business School at Heriot-Watt University, and an Academic Member of the Chartered Institute of
Personnel and Development. James has published research in human resource management and
employment relations journals, edited book collections and consultancy-based reports. James’ current
research interests include hidden disability and the workplace, in-work poverty, sustainable working
lives, leaveism and the Trade Union Act 2016. James Richards can be contacted at: [email protected]
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]
ER
44,3
554