Heriot-Watt University
Research Gateway
Putting employees at the centre of sustainable HRM: a review,
map and research agenda
Citation for published version:
Richards, J 2022, ‘Putting employees at the centre of sustainable HRM: a review, map and research
agenda’, Employee Relations, vol. 44, no. 3, pp. 533-554. https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-01-2019-0037
Digital Object Identifier (DOI):
10.1108/ER-01-2019-0037
Link:
Link to publication record in Heriot-Watt Research Portal
Document Version:
Peer reviewed version
Published In:
Employee Relations
Publisher Rights Statement:
This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Richards, J. (2020), “Putting employees at the centre of
sustainable HRM: a review, map and research agenda”, Employee Relations, which has been published in final
form at https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-01-2019-0037
General rights
Copyright for the publications made accessible via Heriot-Watt Research Portal is retained by the author(s) and /
or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing these publications that users recognise and abide by
the legal requirements associated with these rights.
Take down policy
Heriot-Watt University has made every reasonable effort to ensure that the content in Heriot-Watt Research
Portal complies with UK legislation. If you believe that the public display of this file breaches copyright please
contact [email protected] providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and
investigate your claim.
Download date: 10. Oct. 2022
Employee Relations
Putting employees at the centre of sustainable HRM: A
review, map and research agenda

Employee Relations
Employee Relations
1
Putting employees at the centre of sustainable HRM: A review,
map and research agenda
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 – 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 self-organised 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
Page 1 of 39 Employee Relations
123456789
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Employee Relations
2
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 synthesises the literature into a new map and an extensive research agenda.
Key words: Sustainability, Sustainable HRM, Built environment, HRM, Sustainable working
lives, Industrial relations, Labour process, Map, Research agenda
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 willing to remain in employment 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
Employee Relations Page 2 of 39
123456789
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Employee Relations
3
employees, as well as creating wider social benefit, including lower unemployment (Zwicki,
2016), demand for out-of 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 key
parties to sustainable HRM – the employer and recent governments, is privileged over that of
employees, creating a problematic vision of sustainable HRM based on employer and
governmental interests, rather than 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, self-organised 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,
is 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 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
Page 3 of 39 Employee Relations
123456789
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Employee Relations
4
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 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 industrial relations literature and literature reflecting 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
Employee Relations Page 4 of 39
123456789
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Employee Relations
5
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 following 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. Then on, further refined and advanced searches concentrated on literature from the
year 2000 onwards. 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, including journal articles (n=41), books and edited book
chapters (n=18) and reports (n=5).
Subsequently, the literature was analysed for key sustainable HRM themes. The analysis was
guided by two broad questions: what is meant by ‘sustainable’, and, 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; and where applicable, geographical location of study, employee group,
methodological approach and theoretical framing (see Figure I).
Key themes to emerge from this stage of analysis (see Figure I) included 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 industrial relations literature
Page 5 of 39 Employee Relations
123456789
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Employee Relations
6
and literature reflecting 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 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
Employee Relations Page 6 of 39
123456789
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Employee Relations
7
many ways by which HRM is distinguishable from regular HRM practice. The second part
further highlights key strengths, but also highlights 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
Page 7 of 39 Employee Relations
123456789
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Employee Relations
8
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 (Järlström 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),
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 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 is 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
Employee Relations Page 8 of 39
123456789
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Employee Relations
9
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 co-operation between trade unions, employers and governments (Järlström 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 to solve
organisational problems, but to also tackle wider societal problems including, for example, inwork 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., 2013; Koolhaas et al., 2011). 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), 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
Page 9 of 39 Employee Relations
123456789
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Employee Relations
10
example, how employees working in intelligent buildings reported liking their workplace,
feeling pride in their workplace surroundings, increased job satisfaction and reported 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 well-being. 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.
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 only the most
progressive of employers seems 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
Employee Relations Page 10 of 39
123456789
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Employee Relations
11
in a wide-range of international settings (Aust et al. (2019). Further benefits include employees
experiencing high levels of respect from line managers (Järlström 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. (2013) 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, increasingly via the everyday work of line managers
(Ehnert, 2009), as 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 are 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) 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
Page 11 of 39 Employee Relations
123456789
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Employee Relations
12
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 interventions (Hägglund
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
Employee Relations Page 12 of 39
123456789
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Employee Relations
13
(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 I, only about 40 per cent of sustainable HRM articles
is 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 desk-based 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).
FIGURE I GOES HERE
The research on sustainable HRM is evidently defined by geographical location, with
some clusters around certain parts of the world (see Figure I). 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 have been conducted on an
international scale (e.g. Price, 2015; Smith and Pitt, 2011), in Scandinavian countries (e.g.
Eriksson et al., 2017; Järlström 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
Page 13 of 39 Employee Relations
123456789
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Employee Relations
14
smaller number of studies centre on, for example, Poland (Zientara, 2009) and 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 corporatism.
No type or group of employees dominates the literature (see Figure I). However, the
most common group reflected in the literature is older employees (e.g. Fuertes et al. 2013;
Hirsch, 2007), representing approximately 15 per cent of all studies. Further groups attracting
research include young employees (e.g. Hanvold et al., 2016; Härmä, 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 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 (Hägglund et al., 2016), 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
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 I). For
example, nine adopt a quantitative approach (e.g. Van Dam et al., 2017; Nelissen et al. 2016),
Employee Relations Page 14 of 39
123456789
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Employee Relations
15
seven a mixed methods/case study approach (e.g. Smith and Pitt, 2008; 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 are 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., 2013; 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 I). 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 I). Sociological theories, such as work systems (Docherty et al., 2009) and human
capital development (McBride and Mustchin, 2013), have been used to conceptualise
Page 15 of 39 Employee Relations
123456789
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Employee Relations
16
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 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 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
Employee Relations Page 16 of 39
123456789
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Employee Relations
17
reflects in part the decline and marginalisation of corporatism and trade unions and how selforganised 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 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 (Callan, 2011; 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 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.
Page 17 of 39 Employee Relations
123456789
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Employee Relations
18
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 councils, often
firm-level compliments to national or sectoral bargaining arrangements (Grund and Schmitt,
2011). In such situations, trade unions use works councils 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 councils 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 comes 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 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 employer decisions related to paying
Employee Relations Page 18 of 39
123456789
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Employee Relations
19
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 includes 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 anti-burnout tactics,
Page 19 of 39 Employee Relations
123456789
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Employee Relations
20
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, which help to shape and galvanise an autonomous
and well-being protecting shopfloor or team culture (Crowley et al., 2014; Korczynski, 2011;
Richards and Kosmala, 2013; Taylor and Bain; 2003). Such is the impact of self-organised
forms of resistance, 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 widerange 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 on the one hand be branded as “employee misbehaviour”,
but in another sense, 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.
Employee Relations Page 20 of 39
123456789
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Employee Relations
21
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 on-line 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.
Page 21 of 39 Employee Relations
123456789
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Employee Relations
22
Discussion and conclusions: Towards a map and research agenda for
employee-centred 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 II). What is more, how employment can be
made more sustainable may well represent contested terrain, yet it seems attempts to make
employment more sustainable leads 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, 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 II). 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 arrangements have been
abandoned or ‘airbrushed’ out of contemporary practice, representing in itself a barrier to
employee-centred sustainable HRM.
FIGURE II GOES HERE
Employee Relations Page 22 of 39
123456789
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Employee Relations
23
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 (ClementsCroome, 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 II). 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 II), 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 respectful employer-employee relations (Järlström et al. 2018)
and the creation and design of high-quality jobs (Ehnert et al., 2013). 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
Page 23 of 39 Employee Relations
123456789
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Employee Relations
24
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 II). 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 II). 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
reveals sustainable HRM to be achievable through, for example, influencing disability and
wider equality practices (Bacon and Hoque, 2015), supporting vulnerable employees (James
Employee Relations Page 24 of 39
123456789
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Employee Relations
25
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 II). 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. By 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 II) 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
Page 25 of 39 Employee Relations
123456789
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Employee Relations
26
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 practiced.
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 II, 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 II). 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 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 micro-forms 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 I), not least because of the many mutual benefits achievable via
sustainable forms of HRM. First, there is scope for more empirical and/or conceptual research
Employee Relations Page 26 of 39
123456789
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Employee Relations
27
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 micro-resistance.
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, inter-linked, yet key facets to achieving employee-centred sustainable HRM.
Page 27 of 39 Employee Relations
123456789
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Employee Relations
28
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), London, SpringerLink, pp. 35-48.
Akkermans, J., Nykänen, 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), London,
SpringerLink, 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 Edition,
Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, pp. 358-369.
App, S., Merk, J. and Büttgen, 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 & Comparative
Employment Relations: Globalisation and Change, 5th Edition, London, Sage.
Bancarzewski, M. and Hardy, J. (2017), “’Communities of resistance’ and the use of newspaper
discussion boards: Polish workers in Japanese 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 and Health throughout the Life Course (Aligning Perspectives on Health,
Safety and Well-Being), London, SpringerLink, 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.
Employee Relations Page 28 of 39
123456789
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Employee Relations
29
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, Oxford University Press, 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: An International Journal,
Vol. 25, No. 5, pp. 408-425.
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L., Higgins, J. and Rothstein, H. (2009), Introduction to MetaAnalysis, Chichester, Wiley.
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),
London, SpringerLink, 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.
Page 29 of 39 Employee Relations
123456789
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Employee Relations
30
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), London, SpringerLink, 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, London, Routledge, pp. 1-32.
Ehnert, I. (2009), Sustainable Human Resource Management: A Conceptual and Exploratory
Analysis from a Paradox Perspective (Contributions to Management Science), Heidelberg,
Springer.
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, London,
Springer, pp. 339-358.
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, Basingstoke, Palgrave
Macmillan, 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, Luxembourg, Publications Office of
the European Union.
Fagan, C. and Walthery, P. (2011), “Individual working-time adjustments between full-time
and part-time 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 + 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.
Employee Relations Page 30 of 39
123456789
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Employee Relations
31
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,
https://www.buildings.com/article-details/articleid/8617/title/sustainable-workplace-designcreates-innovation-opportunities (accessed 27 October 2019).
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.
Hägglund, 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. Nykänen, M., Ólafsdóttir, S., Thomée, S., Holte, K., Vuori, J., Wærsted,
M., and Veiersted, K. (2016), Young Workers and Sustainable Work Life: Special Emphasis
on Nordic Conditions, Denmark, Nordic Council of Ministers.
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, 2369.
Härmä, 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), London, SpringLink, 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.
Page 31 of 39 Employee Relations
123456789
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Employee Relations
32
Hirsch, D. (2009), “Sustaining working lives: the challenge of retention”, in: Loretto, W.,
Vickerstaff, S. and White, P., The Future for Older Workers: New Perspectives, Bristol,
Policy, pp. 103-120.
Hoque, K. and Bacon, N. (2008), “Trade unions, union learning representatives and employerprovided 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, London, House of Commons.
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.
Järlström, 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.
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.
Employee Relations Page 32 of 39
123456789
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Employee Relations
33
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 union 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, Nos. 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), London, SpringLink, 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., Hűlsheger, 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.
Page 33 of 39 Employee Relations
123456789
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Employee Relations
34
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), London, SpringLink, p. 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, London,
Sage.
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.
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 & 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
Employee Relations Page 34 of 39
123456789
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Employee Relations
35
Working Lives Managing Work Transitions and Health throughout the Life Course (Aligning
Perspectives on Health, Safety and Well-Being), London, SpringLink, 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, London, Shift.
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), London, SpringLink, 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.
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D. and Smart, P. (2003), “Towards a methodology for developing
evidence‐informed 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, Nottingham,
Spokesman.
Vanroelen, C. (2017), “Longer working careers and sustainable work: The issue of social
responsibility”, Society, Health & Vulnerability, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 9-13.
Page 35 of 39 Employee Relations
123456789
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Employee Relations
36
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., Bültmann, 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 & Health, Vol. 40, No. 3, pp. 287-94.
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), London, SpringLink, pp. 87-105.
Wilkinson, A., Hill, M. and Gollan, P. (2001), “The sustainability debate”, International
Journal of Operations & 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.
Employee Relations Page 36 of 39
123456789
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Employee Relations
37
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.
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.
Page 37 of 39 Employee Relations
123456789
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Employee Relations
Studies of
sustainable HRM
Type of article
Empirical (n=25)
General review (n=33)
Systematic review (n=2)
Conceptual (n=4)
Locality of study
Europe (n=37)
Scandinavia (n=8)
North America (n=7)
International (n=6)
Developing countries (n=1)
None stated (n=5)
Methodological approach
Quantitative (n=9)
Mixed/case study (n=7)
Qualitative (n=6)
Secondary data (n=4)
Experimental (n=2)
N/A (n=36)
Theoretical framing
Organisational behaviour (n=22)
Medical (n=18)
Sociological (n=8)
Economic (n=7)
Political (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 occupation (n=4)
Non-specific (n=18)
Figure I: Mapping the many approaches to researching sustainable HRM (n=64)
Employee Relations Page 38 of 39
123456789
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Employee Relations
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
Perceptions of well-being
Comfortable work spaces
HRM
Flexible working practices
Equality practices
Respect from managers
High quality jobs
Recruitment and retention
Sustainable Working Lives
Socially responsible
organisations
Inclusive workplaces
Civil society organisations
partnerships
Healthcare initiatives
Labour Process
Micro-resistance
Autonomous shopfloor
cultures
Coping practices
Social media selforganisation
Industrial Relations
Shaping employer practices
Supporting all employees
Reducing gender pay gaps
Partnership working
Works councils/voice and
bargaining mechanisms
HRM
practitioners
and line
managers
Built
environment and
ergonomics
specialists
Governments
Trade
unions
Civil society
organisations
Occupational
health and wider
health
professionals
Figure II: Employee-centred sustainable HRM
Self-organised
employees
Page 39 of 39 Employee Relations
123456789
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46