Arief Subyantoro | Khoirul Hikmah | Dwi Aulia Puspitaningrum | Rifqi Syarif Nasrulloh*
© 2022 IIETA. This article is published by IIETA and is licensed under the CC BY 4.0 license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
OPEN ACCESS
Green Human Resource Management (GHRM) reflects the aspect of human resource management in environmental management, and it focuses on the role of human resources in preventing pollution through the operational processes of a business. GHRM plays a vital role in environmental management as the human resource function also plays an important role in achieving the company's goals of a green company. Therefore, this study aims to identify the direct effect of the Green Human Resource Management variable on the participation of farmer group members and the indirect effect of Organizational Commitment as a mediating variable. The population of this study was all farmer group members in Tirtomartani Village with a total of 510 members. The determination of the sample used the cluster random sampling technique because the groups have similar characteristics such as farming behavior, level of education, farming patterns, plants planted, size of fields, to the organizational structure of each farmer group. This study used a five-point Likert scale with 5 for strongly agree and 1 for strongly disagree. Data were collected from 110 respondents. The analysis was performed with the help of SmartPLS with the Path Analysis Method. The results showed that Green Recruitment and Selection, Green Training, Green Performance Management, and Green Payment and Reward have a positive and significant effect on the participation of farmer group members, while Green Involvement did not. Moreover, organizational commitment cannot be used as a mediating variable in this research model. Farmer groups had programs to develop skills, knowledge and attitudes related to good environmental management so that the participation of their members' increased. A successful organization means that each member pays more attention to green performance targets, and indicators of green performance success, evaluate green performance and reduce errors that affect the decline in the predetermined green performance.
green human resource management, organizational commitment, participation of member
Participation of farmer group members is an important indicator to determine the success or failure of a farmer group. The low participation reflects the low financial contribution of members and low participation in the decision-making process. The interesting aspect concerning the success of the participation of farmer group members is GHRM. In the last decade, environmental conservation has been a concern as the success of a business in environmental management depends on its green human behavior as human behavior can increase the overall environmental performance of the business, this is in line with the success of GHRM practice that manages to influence the member’s participation levels [1, 2]. Concerning environmental conservation, human resources can be a means for the formulation and implementation of successful environmental management [3]. The main goal of GHRM is to develop, motivate, and provide opportunities to demonstrate superior work behavior and performance in a sustainable competitive advantage so as to influence the participation of group members who are increasingly concerned with organizational goals and achievements [4].
GHRM plays a vital role in environmental management as the function of human resources also plays an important role in achieving the goals of a green company [5-7]. Previous studies concerning GHRM supports the need for leaders not to ignore some of the roles of GHRM in supporting organizations towards greener outcomes [8]. GHRM implementation in an organization provides other positive impacts such as increasing the employee’s morale, attitudes, and behavior to concern more about participating in saving the environment. [9]. GHRM is a goal that helps create a green workforce who can understand and appreciate the green culture in an organization. Green initiatives can maintain green goals throughout the human resource management (HRM) process of recruiting, hiring and training, compensating, developing, and advancing the company's human resources [10]. Astuti and Wahyuni [11] state that GHRM is a form of HRM development, namely a policy and practice needed by someone who performs the aspects of recruitment, screening, training, rewarding, and assessment.
Companies need to consider organizational commitment for the sustainability of the company. Luthans [12] states that organizational commitment consists of a strong desire to remain a member of an organization, a worker's willingness to work hard on behalf of the organization, and individuals’ beliefs and acceptance of the values and goals of the organization. Greenberg and Baron [13] state that employees with a high organizational commitment are more stable and productive so it is more profitable for the organization, so that organizational commitment is predicted to be able to strengthen the organizational member’s participation where their work intentions are in line with the applicable management practices in the organization [9]. High organizational commitment makes employees or workers more motivated to be in the organization and to achieve organizational goals [14]. In this study, researchers identify the influence of GHRM on the participation of farmer group members in Sleman Yogyakarta with organizational commitment as a mediating variable.
2.1 Green human resource management
Das and Singh [15] define GHRM as a procedure that applies environmentally friendly or green concepts and HR policies that lead to more employee involvement, and cost-effective leadership, that can encourage organizational sustainability. Tang et al. [16] state that in measuring GHRM, it can be seen from some variables, namely Green Recruitment and Selection, Green Training (GT), Green Performance Management (GPM), Green Payment and Reward (GPR), and Green Involvement (GI). Hiring candidates who have a green mindset helps the company to have professionals who are aware of sustainable processes and are familiar with the basics of green concepts such as recycling and conservation [17]. Green recruitment can result in a green commitment and has a positive impact on the company as it has the opportunity to increase company profits [18]. Renwick et al. [19] divides GRS into three indicators, namely Green Awareness, Green Branding, and Green Criteria for Attracting Candidates.
Green training is a practice focusing on developing employees’ skills, knowledge, and attitudes related to environmental management [20]. Green Training needs to be carried out as it can increase the awareness, knowledge, and skills of members. In companies that implement GHRM, green training has to be provided to all members [21]. Tang et al. [16] insert three indicators in Green Training, namely pro-environment activities, provision of knowledge management, and climate initiatives for the environment.
Jabbour et al. [22] state that GPM refers to an employee performance evaluation system in the environmental management process. Some previous studies have investigated Green Performance Management by providing feedback and balance metrics [23]. Companies need to identify a systematic method of implementing GPM [16]. The implementation of GPM needs to consider some aspects including determining a green target for all members to emphasize and translate environmental goals into an action plan for all staff [24]. Creating green performance indicators is important in the implementation of GPM [17]. Besides, evaluating the results of green performance is also important. Organizations also need to emphasize the role of their members in environmental management to be more responsible for their performance, including environmental performance. Disbenefit is a negative measure to deal with problems regarding the green performance outcomes of members who do not comply with established regulations [19].
Rewards and incentives can make performance more effective to motivate and produce green initiatives [25]. Jabbour et al. [26], Mandip [27] define Green Payment and Reward as a financial and non-financial reward system to attract, retain, and motivate organizational members in contributing to environmental goals. Green travel can be said as one of the rewards for transportation and travel of the organization members. They are guided to learn how to reduce their carbon footprint and have a greater awareness of environmental protection. Green recognition requires a non-financial reward system for members, for example, public recognition and gift certificates. Green rewards can lead to feelings of pride among coworkers and effectively encourage environmental initiatives [25].
Member involvement in green initiatives can increase opportunities for better green management by aligning goals, abilities, motivations, and perceptions of employees with green management practices and systems [28]. Members may be provided with opportunities to engage in environmental management, which stimulates them to support pollution prevention and identify environmental opportunities [19]. Tang [16] in line with [19] identify five indicators of GI including Green Vision, Green Learning Climate, communication channels, green initiatives, and opportunities in improving quality and problem-solving in environmental problems.
Figure 1. Research framework
2.2 Organizational commitment and participation of member
Organizational commitment is the extent to which individuals are involved in the organization [29]. As proposed by Allen and Meyer [30], organizational commitment has three indicators of affective commitment, continuance commitment, and normative commitment. Chun et al. [31] state that organizational commitment is closely related to work ethics as when the organization highly depends on some limited standards, the commitment of the members will increase. Green behavior and environmental performance are in line with [7] that organizational commitment has a strong relationship with environmental performance. Furthermore, Bangwal and Tiwari [9], Mowday et al. [14] argue strong organizational commitment increases members’ participation in playing their roles in the organization [2]. There is a strong role of organizational commitment between green behavior and green human resource management so that GHRM practices are a fundamental concern so that member participation can increase [32]. Kim et al. [33] reveal empirical evidence on the relationship between organizational commitment and GHRM. Therefore, this present study uses the following framework and hypothesis listed in Figure 1:
H1a: GRS has a positive effect on the Participation of Farmer Group Members
H1b: GT has a positive effect on the Participation of Farmer Group Members
H1c: GPM has a positive effect on the Participation of Farmer Group Members
H1d: GPR has a positive effect on the Participation of Farmer Group Members
H1e: GI has a positive effect on the Participation of Farmer Group Members
H2a: GRS has an effect on the Participation of Farmer Group Members mediated by Organizational Commitment
H2b: GT has an effect on the Participation of Farmer Group Members mediated by Organizational Commitment
H2c: GPM has an effect on the Participation of Farmer Group Members mediated by Organizational Commitment
H2d: GPR affects the Participation of Farmer Group Members mediated by Organizational Commitment
H2e: GI has an effect on the Participation of Farmer Group Members mediated by Organizational Commitment
The population in this study was farmer groups in Tirtomarnani Village, Sleman, Yogyakarta. Tirtomartani Gapoktan has 17 farmer groups with a total of 510 members. The determination of the sample used the cluster random sampling technique as the farmer groups in Tirtomartani village had similar characteristics of organizational structure. Data were collected by distributing questionnaires to respondents. This study used a five-point Likert scale with 5 for strongly agree and 1 for strongly disagree. Inferential statistical analysis was divided into two, namely descriptive analysis and path analysis with the Partial Least Square program. In the Partial Least Square program, the outer model assessment used Convergent Validity, and Composite Reliability tests and, while the structural model (inner model) was to predict the relationship between latent variables and the hypothesized [34]. The validity test aims to find out the validity of the obtained data from questionnaires. The reliability test aims to determine the reliability of the measuring instrument [34]. The measurement indicators for each variable can be seen below Table 1.
Table 1. Measurement indicators of research variables
|
No |
Variable |
Indicator |
|
1 |
Green Recruitment and Selection (GRS) [16, 19, 35] |
Awareness of Green Environment |
|
Green Branding for Candidates |
||
|
Green Criteria for Candidates |
||
|
2 |
Green Training (GT) [16, 35-37] |
Increasing Environmental Awareness |
|
Green Knowledge Management |
||
|
Building Green Initiative Climate |
||
|
3 |
Green Performance Management (GPM) [16, 19, 24] |
Determining Green Targets |
|
Creating Green Performance Indicators |
||
|
Evaluating Green Performance |
||
|
Making a loss |
||
|
4 |
Green Payment and Reward (GPR) [16, 25] |
Transportation Benefits |
|
Green Incentives and Taxes |
||
|
Green Confession |
||
|
5 |
Green Involvement (GI) [16, 19, 38] |
Green Vision |
|
Green Learning Climate |
||
|
Communication Channel |
||
|
Offering Green Practice |
||
|
Supporting Green Involvment |
||
|
6 |
Organizational Commitment [30] |
Affective Commitment |
|
Continuance Commitment |
||
|
Normative Commitment |
||
|
7 |
Member Participation [39] |
Contributive Participation |
|
Incentive Participation |
4.1 Characteristics and profile of respondents
Characteristics of respondents including sex, age, length of joining the group, and education are presented in Table 2.
4.2 Description of research variables
Green Human Resource Management (GHRM) variable reached a value of 3.87 or in the high category. This means that the organization manages to apply the concept of green environment and HRM management policy which lead to more member involvement, skill development, and member attitudes by preventing the decline in knowledge, skills, and attitude concerning green human resource management. The following questionnaire results on the GHRM variable are listed in the Table 3.
Organizational commitment variable obtained a value of 4.21 or in the very high category. This means that the member of farmer group have farmer groups have an individual relationship with the organization and implement the decision whether to continue or not to continue the membership in the organization very well. The following questionnaire results on the Organizational Commitment variable are listed in the Table 4.
The Member Participation variable obtained a value of 4.14 or in the high category. This means that the Program, members, and management are suitable. The agreement between the output and the needs referred to in the organization's program is considered to be able to provide higher member participation. The following questionnaire results on the Participation variable are listed in the Table 5.
4.3 Convergent validity and composite reliability of the outer model
Table 6 shows that Organizational Commitment (KO) and Member Participation (PA) have AVE values of > 0.5 and CR > 0.7. This means that there is no measurement error in the outer model and all latent variables can be used to predict structural functions in the inner model. Meanwhile, the Green Human Resource Management (GHRM) variable has an AVE value lower than 0.5 with a CR value of > 0.7. This shows that this variable is considered to have a high consistency value.
Table 2. Profile of respondents
|
Profile of Respondents |
Frequency |
Percentage (%) |
|
|
Sex |
Male Female |
87 23 |
79.1 20.9 |
|
Age |
27 - 36 37 - 46 47 - 56 57 - 66 67 - 76 |
18 23 24 38 7 |
16.4 20.9 21.8 34.5 6.4 |
|
Length of joining the group |
2 - 12 13 - 23 24 - 34 35 - 45 46 - 57 |
27 41 18 15 9 |
24.5 37.3 16.4 13.6 8.2 |
|
Education |
Elementary School/equal Junior High School Senior High School/Vocational High School University |
28 25 53 4 |
25.4 22.7 48.1 3.6 |
|
|
Total |
110 |
100 |
Source: Processed Primary Data, 2022
Table 3. Results of questionnaire on GHRM variable
|
Green Recruitment and Selection (GRS) |
||||||||
|
Variable |
STATETEMNT |
Frequency |
Mean |
Notes |
||||
|
(SD) |
(D) |
(N) |
(A) |
(SA) |
||||
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
||||
|
X1.1 |
Awareness of Green Environment |
0 |
3 |
18 |
54 |
35 |
4.10 |
High |
|
X1.2 |
Green Branding for Candidates |
85 |
21 |
0 |
2 |
2 |
1.32 |
Very low |
|
X1.3 |
Green Criteria for Candidates |
6 |
21 |
36 |
39 |
8 |
3.20 |
Moderate |
|
Total |
91 |
45 |
54 |
95 |
45 |
2.87 |
Moderate |
|
|
Green Training (GT) |
||||||||
|
X2.1 |
Increasing Environmental Awareness |
0 |
4 |
18 |
48 |
40 |
4.13 |
High |
|
X2.2 |
Green Knowledge Management |
0 |
5 |
22 |
55 |
28 |
3.96 |
High |
|
X2.3 |
Building Green Initiative Climate |
0 |
6 |
23 |
40 |
41 |
4.05 |
High |
|
Total |
0 |
15 |
63 |
143 |
109 |
4.05 |
High |
|
|
Green Performance Management (GPM) |
||||||||
|
X3.1 |
Determining target |
0 |
5 |
14 |
51 |
40 |
4.15 |
High |
|
X3.2 |
Creating indicator |
0 |
5 |
18 |
55 |
32 |
4.04 |
High |
|
X3.3 |
Evaluating performance |
0 |
2 |
15 |
52 |
41 |
4.20 |
Very high |
|
X3.4 |
Disbenefit |
0 |
4 |
15 |
58 |
33 |
4.09 |
High |
|
Total |
0 |
16 |
62 |
216 |
146 |
4.12 |
High |
|
|
Green Payment and Reward (GPR) |
||||||||
|
X4.1 |
Transportation Benefits |
0 |
5 |
15 |
45 |
45 |
4.18 |
High |
|
X4.2 |
Green Incentives and Taxes |
0 |
6 |
12 |
49 |
43 |
4.17 |
High |
|
X4.3 |
Green Confession |
0 |
5 |
16 |
55 |
34 |
4.07 |
High |
|
Total |
0 |
16 |
43 |
149 |
122 |
4.14 |
High |
|
|
Green Involvement (GI) |
||||||||
|
X5.1 |
Green Vision |
0 |
3 |
11 |
55 |
41 |
4.22 |
Very high |
|
X5.2 |
Green Learning Climate |
0 |
4 |
10 |
61 |
35 |
4.15 |
High |
|
X5.3 |
Communication Channel |
0 |
1 |
14 |
69 |
26 |
4.09 |
High |
|
X5.4 |
Offering Green Practice |
0 |
2 |
17 |
60 |
31 |
4.09 |
High |
|
X5.5 |
Supporting Green Involvment |
0 |
3 |
11 |
58 |
38 |
4.19 |
High |
|
Total |
0 |
13 |
63 |
303 |
171 |
4.15 |
High |
|
|
Mean |
|
|
|
|
|
3.87 |
High |
|
Table 4. Results of questionnaire on organizational commitment variable
|
Variable |
STATEMENT |
Frequency |
Mean |
Notes |
||||
|
(SD) |
(D) |
(N) |
(A) |
(SA) |
||||
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
||||
|
Z1.1 |
Emotional connection |
0 |
0 |
11 |
59 |
40 |
4.26 |
Very high |
|
Z1.2 |
Identification of organization members |
0 |
0 |
10 |
72 |
28 |
4.16 |
High |
|
Z1.3 |
Involvement in the organization |
0 |
0 |
11 |
63 |
36 |
4.23 |
Very high |
|
Total |
0 |
0 |
32 |
194 |
104 |
4.22 |
Very high |
|
|
Z2.1 |
Reluctance to leave the organization |
0 |
0 |
8 |
79 |
23 |
4.14 |
High |
|
Z2.2 |
Loss of leaving the organization |
0 |
0 |
10 |
74 |
26 |
4.15 |
High |
|
Z2.3 |
Benefits in the organization |
0 |
0 |
12 |
55 |
43 |
4.28 |
Very high |
|
Total |
0 |
0 |
30 |
208 |
92 |
4.19 |
High |
|
|
Z3.1 |
Organizational services for members |
0 |
0 |
12 |
60 |
38 |
4.24 |
Very high |
|
Z3.2 |
Member contributions |
0 |
0 |
11 |
69 |
30 |
4.17 |
High |
|
Z3.3 |
Loyalty to the organization |
0 |
0 |
12 |
59 |
39 |
4.25 |
Very high |
|
Total |
0 |
0 |
35 |
188 |
107 |
4.22 |
Very high |
|
|
Mean |
|
|
|
|
|
4.21 |
Very high |
|
Table 5. Results of questionnaires on member participation variable
|
Variable |
STATEMENT |
Frequency |
Mean |
Notes |
||||
|
(SD) |
(D) |
(N) |
(A) |
(SA) |
||||
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
||||
|
Y1.1 |
Willingness to participate in capital |
0 |
3 |
11 |
65 |
31 |
4.13 |
High |
|
Y1.2 |
Involvement in policy |
0 |
3 |
17 |
49 |
41 |
4.16 |
High |
|
Y1.3 |
Contribution of ideas to the organization |
0 |
2 |
18 |
52 |
38 |
4.15 |
High |
|
Total |
0 |
8 |
46 |
166 |
110 |
4.15 |
High |
|
|
Y2.1 |
Utilization of organizational potential |
0 |
4 |
13 |
61 |
32 |
4.10 |
High |
|
Y2.2 |
Utilization of organizational infrastructure |
0 |
5 |
16 |
49 |
40 |
4.13 |
High |
|
Y2.3 |
Utilization of organizational opportunities |
0 |
0 |
23 |
43 |
44 |
4.19 |
High |
|
Jumlah |
0 |
9 |
52 |
153 |
116 |
4.14 |
High |
|
|
Rata-rata |
|
|
|
|
|
4.14 |
High |
|
Table 6. AVE values and composite reliability (CR)
|
No |
Construct |
Convergent Validity (AVE Values) |
Composite Reliability |
Notes |
|
1 |
Green Human Resource Management (GHRM) |
0.367 |
0.906 |
Reliable |
|
2 |
Organizational Commitment (KO) |
0.502 |
0.901 |
Reliable |
|
3 |
Member Participation (PA) |
0.669 |
0.924 |
Reliable |
Source: Processed Primary Data, 2022
Table 7. Results of outer model analysis
|
Original Sample (O) |
Sample Mean (M) |
Standard Deviation (STDEV) |
Standard Error (STERR) |
T Statistics (|O/STERR|) |
Sig. |
|
|
X1.1 ← GHRM |
0.795 |
0.792 |
0.044 |
0.044 |
18.040 |
0.000 |
|
X1.2 ← GHRM |
0.370 |
0.368 |
0.063 |
0.063 |
5.835 |
0.000 |
|
X1.3 ← GHRM |
0.290 |
0.285 |
0.106 |
0.106 |
2.741 |
0.007 |
|
X2.1 ← GHRM |
0.797 |
0.797 |
0.034 |
0.034 |
23.317 |
0.000 |
|
X2.2 ← GHRM |
0.730 |
0.724 |
0.055 |
0.055 |
13.281 |
0.000 |
|
X2.3 ← GHRM |
0.815 |
0.812 |
0.036 |
0.036 |
22.463 |
0.000 |
|
X3.1 ← GHRM |
0.742 |
0.740 |
0.054 |
0.054 |
13.616 |
0.000 |
|
X3.2 ← GHRM |
0.644 |
0.639 |
0.069 |
0.069 |
9.397 |
0.000 |
|
X3.3 ← GHRM |
0.610 |
0.594 |
0.084 |
0.084 |
7.256 |
0.000 |
|
X3.4 ← GHRM |
0.661 |
0.655 |
0.069 |
0.069 |
9.619 |
0.000 |
|
X4.1 ← GHRM |
0.744 |
0.735 |
0.073 |
0.073 |
10.248 |
0.000 |
|
X4.2 ← GHRM |
0.538 |
0.520 |
0.088 |
0.088 |
6.131 |
0.000 |
|
X4.3 ← GHRM |
0.677 |
0.658 |
0.082 |
0.082 |
8.247 |
0.000 |
|
X5.1 ← GHRM |
0.493 |
0.480 |
0.114 |
0.114 |
4.323 |
0.000 |
|
X5.2 ← GHRM |
0.485 |
0.468 |
0.095 |
0.095 |
5.102 |
0.000 |
|
X5.3 ← GHRM |
0.401 |
0.400 |
0.113 |
0.113 |
3.548 |
0.001 |
|
X5.4 ← GHRM |
0.304 |
0.294 |
0.122 |
0.122 |
2.493 |
0.014 |
|
X5.5 ← GHRM |
0.359 |
0.363 |
0.108 |
0.108 |
3.317 |
0.001 |
|
Y1.1 ← PA |
0.759 |
0.749 |
0.052 |
0.052 |
14.519 |
0.000 |
|
Y1.2 ← PA |
0.862 |
0.858 |
0.026 |
0.026 |
32.724 |
0.000 |
|
Y1.3 ← PA |
0.833 |
0.833 |
0.028 |
0.028 |
29.614 |
0.000 |
|
Y1.4 ← PA |
0.852 |
0.845 |
0.031 |
0.031 |
27.769 |
0.000 |
|
Y1.5 ← PA |
0.875 |
0.873 |
0.026 |
0.026 |
33.546 |
0.000 |
|
Y1.6 ← PA |
0.715 |
0.706 |
0.049 |
0.049 |
14.553 |
0.000 |
|
Z1.1 ← KO |
0.718 |
0.710 |
0.062 |
0.062 |
11.536 |
0.000 |
|
Z1.2 ← KO |
0.745 |
0.727 |
0.058 |
0.058 |
12.949 |
0.000 |
|
Z1.3 ← KO |
0.731 |
0.720 |
0.060 |
0.060 |
12.085 |
0.000 |
|
Z2.1 ← KO |
0.720 |
0.710 |
0.060 |
0.060 |
11.937 |
0.000 |
|
Z2.2 ← KO |
0.720 |
0.704 |
0.059 |
0.059 |
12.150 |
0.000 |
|
Z2.3 ← KO |
0.758 |
0.752 |
0.045 |
0.045 |
16.884 |
0.000 |
|
Z3.1 ← KO |
0.683 |
0.681 |
0.053 |
0.053 |
12.848 |
0.000 |
|
Z3.2 ← KO |
0.642 |
0.633 |
0.069 |
0.069 |
9.303 |
0.000 |
|
Z3.3 ← KO |
0.653 |
0.643 |
0.058 |
0.058 |
11.346 |
0.000 |
4.4 Outer model assessment
Table 7 shows some items that have an outer loading value higher than 0.5; and the outer loading significance test shows that all items have a significant value lower than 0.05. Thus, it can be said that the questionnaire items in this study have a good outer model.
4.5 Coefficient of determination of endogenous variables
The endogenous variables in the inner model of the structural equation show that Organizational Commitment (KO) and Member Participation (PA) are determined by Green Human Resource Management (GHRM).
Table 8. R2 Values of endogenous variables in the inner model
|
Exogenous variable |
Endogenous variable |
R2 value |
|
Green Human Resource Management (GHRM) |
Organizational Commitment (KO) Member Participation (PA) |
0.516 0.801 |
Source: Processed Primary Data, 2022
Based on Table 8, the total coefficient of determination can be counted as follows (Q2):
Q2predictive=1-(1-0.516) (1–0.801)=1-(0.484 x 0.199)=1-(0.096)=0.904
The total coefficient of determination (R2) is 0.904 or in other words, it can predict the model by 90.4% while the remaining 9.6% is caused by variables outside the model.
4.6 Hypothesis testing
The research model structure can be seen in Figure 2, from these results Table 9 shows the results of the direct effects and Table 10 shows the results of the indirect effects. Partially GRS, GT, GPM and GPR have a positive and significant influence on member participation. However, GI does not have a significant effect. The results of the indirect effect show that organizational commitment cannot mediate the effect of GHRM on member participation.
Figure 2. Structural model (Inner model) among latent variables
Table 9. Results of Inner model for direct effects
|
Hypothesis |
Path |
Original Sample (O) |
Standard Deviation (STDEV) |
Standard Error (STERR) |
T Statistics (|O/STERR|) |
Sig, |
|
1a |
GRS®PA |
0.195 |
0.1857 |
0.0703 |
2.770 |
0.007 |
|
1b |
GT®PA |
0.271 |
0.2749 |
0.0843 |
3.210 |
0.002 |
|
1c |
GPM®PA |
0.249 |
0.2541 |
0.1013 |
2.453 |
0.016 |
|
1d |
GPR®PA |
0.150 |
0.1475 |
0.0723 |
2.068 |
0.041 |
|
1e |
GI®PA |
0.076 |
0.0833 |
0.0620 |
1.226 |
0.223 |
Table 10. Results of Inner model for indirect effects
|
Exogenous |
Mediation |
Endogenous |
Sobel Test |
Decision |
|||
|
Axb |
Z-test |
p-value |
|||||
|
H2a |
GRS |
KO |
PA |
0.011 |
0.580 |
0.562 |
Not mediating |
|
H2b |
GT |
KO |
PA |
0.018 |
0.724 |
0.469 |
Not mediating |
|
H2c |
GPM |
KO |
PA |
0.043 |
1.267 |
0.205 |
Not mediating |
|
H2d |
GPR |
KO |
PA |
0.051 |
1.828 |
0.068 |
Not mediating |
|
H2e |
GI |
KO |
PA |
0.054 |
1.939 |
0.053 |
Not mediating |
The results of this study are in line with [17, 19, 40, 41] that there is a positive relationship between GHRM and member participation. In this study, hypothesis 1 which states that Green Recruitment and Selection have a positive and significant effect on the participation of farmer group members is proven. Green Recruitment and Selection is a system where organizational members focus more on the importance of the environment and make it the main element in the organization [17]. Recruiting group members who have a green mindset will make it easier for organizations to have professional members who are aware of sustainable processes and are familiar with the green concepts such as recycling and conservation [17]. The green image in the organization members makes them feel prouder to work in organizations with a good environmental reputation [23].
Green Training and development are also used to train members to work with methods that save energy, reduce waste, spread environmental awareness within the organization, and provide opportunities to involve in solving environmental problems [20]. Green training refers to a system of activities that can motivate organizational members to learn environmental protection skills and pay attention to environmental issues, which are key to achieving environmental goals [23]. Fernandez et al. [37] state that Green Training is needed as it can increase the awareness, knowledge, and skills of organizational members. Green training programs can help organizational members better understand the importance of environmental protection, which makes members more sensitive to the process of controlling and/or preventing environmental damage [36].
When organizations can integrate environmental performance into their performance management system, they protect environmental management from any possible harm [42]. Therefore, members remain rational in making decisions on the sustainability of business management with various existing limitations [43]. Effective performance appraisal provides useful feedback to each member of the organization and supports continuous improvement in more environmentally friendly results [23]. Each member of the organization who has a green mindset will refer to the performance evaluation system in the process of sustainable environmental management [22]. Therefore, organizations need to identify a systematic method for implementing Green Performance Management [16].
Payment and Reward is the most powerful method of connecting individual interests with organizational interests [42]. In accordance with the strategic approach to rewards and management, today's modern organizations focus on developing reward systems to encourage green initiatives initiated by organizational members [44]. Rewards and incentives can motivate each member of the organization to produce green initiatives [25]. Each member of the farmer group works hand in hand regarding the benefits of transportation related to the harvesting process and its distribution. Overall, the value of the Green Payment and Reward variable is in the high category. This shows that the financial and non-financial rewards obtained by farmer group members have an impact so their contribution to environmental goals can be realized properly.
Members who have joined will accept all the consequences implemented by the organization including green involvement due to the green vision and mission of the organization. Thus, the organization will involve all its members in improving quality and solving environmental problems. Requiring each member to implement Green Involvement practices is one effective way to motivate members to be involved in environmental management [16, 19]. However, in this study, Green Involvement did not have a significant effect on member participation. Green involvement must be implemented as the organization already have rules of how far each member needs to be involved in every activity in the organization. This returns to social sustainability which can provide various individual interactions in organizations to maintain the rules that have been made [45, 46]. Member involvement including giving responsibilities and opportunities for members to be involved in activities in the organization is not in line with providing opportunities for every member of the organization to participate in the decision-making process.
Moreover, organizational commitment cannot mediate the relationship between Green Recruitment and Selection, Green Training, Green Performance Management, Green Payment and Reward, and Green Involvement in member participation. Organizational commitment is more than just passive loyalty, but involves an active relationship and the desire of organizational members to make a meaningful contribution to the organization [14]. The results of this study indicate that the participation of members is directly influenced by the behavioral practices of Green Recruitment and Selection, Green Training, Green Performance Management, and Green Payment and Reward in a positive and significant way without going through organizational commitment. The results of this study also prove that organizational commitment does not mediate variables that can be used in this research model.
Based on the results of this study, it can be concluded that GRS, GT, GPM and GPR show a positive and significant effect on member participation, but GI does not. Organizational commitment in this research model does not manage to mediate the role of GHRM on member participation. Organizations can plan programs needed by members according to mutual agreement because an agreement between the organization's output and the needs of members will increase member’s participation. Organizations can build a climate that encourages all members of the organization to be involved in environmental initiatives. The organization prioritizes the design of activities such as increasing knowledge and awareness of the green environment, increasing the implementation of environmental awareness, implementing green performance evaluations, the benefits of transportation benefits, and the green vision and mission of the organization. Integrated training does not only cover a comprehensive program but also creates a work climate with an environmental perspective and this will directly lead to higher member participation. Farmer group members have professional skills suitable for their field of work and can help achieve organizational goals, namely green management. Group members have to always evaluate the green performance efforts that have been carried out, thereby increasing member participation.
The limitation of this study is the sample which is only taken from Tirtomartani, Sleman, Yogyakarta. Thus, it cannot be generalized to all members of farmer groups in Indonesia. Besides, primary data were taken from the perception of farmer group members who tend to have a low level of education so that respondents seem to answering the questionnaire in a hurry or unfocused and not fully understand the green management.
[1] Daily, B.F., Bishop, J.W., Govindarajulu, N. (2009). A conceptual model for organizational citizenship behavior directed toward the environment. Business & Society, 48(2): 243-256. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650308315439
[2] Lo, C.K., Yeung, A.C., Cheng, T.C.E. (2012). The impact of environmental management systems on financial performance in fashion and textiles industries. International Journal of Production Economics, 135(2): 561-567. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2011.05.010
[3] Daily, B.F., Huang, S. (2001). Achieving sustainability through attention to human resource factors in environmental management. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 21: 1539-1552. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443570110410892
[4] Boxall, P., Steeneveld, M. (1999). Human resource strategy and competitive advantage: A longitudinal study of engineering consultancies. Journal of Management Studies, 36(4): 443-463. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.00144
[5] Bohdanowicz, P., Zientara, P., Novotna, E. (2011). International hotel chains and environmental protection: an analysis of Hilton's we care! programme (Europe, 2006-2008). Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19(7): 797-816. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2010.549566
[6] Jabbour, C.J.C., Santos, F.C.A. (2008). Relationships between human resource dimensions and environmental management in companies: proposal of a model. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16(1): 51-58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2006.07.025
[7] Paillé, P., Valéau, P., Renwick, D.W. (2020). Leveraging green human resource practices to achieve environmental sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production, 260: 121137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121137
[8] Kay, M.J., Kay, S.A., Tuininga, A.R. (2018). Green teams: A collaborative training model. Journal of Cleaner Production, 176: 909-919. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.032
[9] Bangwal, D., Tiwari, P. (2015). Green HRM-A way to greening the environment. IOSR Journal of Business and Management, 17(12): 45-53. https://doi.org/10.9790/487X-171214553
[10] Dutta, D. (2012). Greening people: A strategic dimension. ZENITH International Journal of Business Economics & Management Research, 2(2): 143-148. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2382034.
[11] Astuti, M., Wahyuni, H.C. (2018). Strategi implementasi green human resource management pada Usaha Mikro, Kecil Dan Menengah (UMKM). Matrik: Jurnal Manajemen, Strategi Bisnis dan Kewirausahaan, 12(2): 121-128. https://doi.org/10.24843/MATRIK:JMBK.2018.v12.i02.p04
[12] Luthans, F. (2001). Grganizational Behavior, Ninth Edition. New York: Mc Graw Hill.
[13] Greenberg & Baron. (1993). Behaviour in Organization (Fourth Edition). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
[14] Mowday, R.T., Porter, L.W., Steers, R. (1982). Employee – Organizational Linkages: The Psychology of Commitment Absentism and Turnover. Academic Press Inc., New York.
[15] Das, S.C., Singh, R.K. (2016). Green HRM and organizational sustainability: An empirical review. Kegees Journal of Social Science, 8(1): 227-236.
[16] Tang, G., Chen, Y., Jiang, Y., Paille, P., Jia, J. (2018). Green human resource management practices: Scale development and validity. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 56(1): 31-55. https://doi.org/10.1111/1744-7941.12147
[17] Ahmad, S. (2015). Green human resource management: Policies and practices. Cogent Business & Management, 2(1): 1030817. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2015.1030817
[18] Grolleau, G., Mzoughi, N., Pekovic, S. (2012). Green not (only) for profit: An empirical examination of the effect of environmental-related standards on employees’ recruitment. Resource and Energy Economics, 34(1): 74-92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reseneeco.2011.10.002
[19] Renwick, D.W., Redman, T., Maguire, S. (2013). Green human resource management: A review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 15(1): 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2011.00328.x
[20] Zoogah, D.B. (2011). The dynamics of green HRM behaviors: A cognitive social information processing approach. German Journal of Human Resource Management, 25(2): 117-139. https://doi.org/10.1177/239700221102500204
[21] Fernandez, E., Junquera, B., Ordiz, M. (2003). Organization culture and human resources in environmental issues: A literature review. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14: 634-656. https://doi.org/10.1080/0958519032000057628
[22] Jabbour, C.J.C., Santos, F.C.A., Nagano, M.S. (2008). Environmental management system and human resource practices: Is there a link between them in four Brazilian companies? Journal of Cleaner Production, 16(17): 1922-1925. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2008.02.004
[23] Jackson, S.E., Renwick, D.W., Jabbour, C.J., Muller-Camen, M. (2011). State-of-the-art and future directions for green human resource management: Introduction to the special issue. German Journal of Human Resource Management, 25(2): 99-116. https://doi.org/10.1177/239700221102500203
[24] Milliman, J., Clair, J. (2017). Best environmental hrm practices in the US. Greening People, 49-73.
[25] Ramus, C.A. (2002). Encouraging innovative environmental actions: What companies and managers must do. Journal of World Business, 37(2): 151-164. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1090-9516(02)00074-3
[26] Jabbour, C.J.C., de Sousa Jabbour, A.B.L., Govindan, K., Teixeira, A.A., de Souza Freitas, W.R. (2013). Environmental management and operational performance in automotive companies in Brazil: the role of human resource management and lean manufacturing. Journal of Cleaner Production, 47: 129-140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.07.010
[27] Mandip, G. (2012). Green HRM: People management commitment to environmental sustainability. Research Journal of Recent Sciences, 1: 244-252.
[28] Florida, R., Davison, D. (2001). Gaining from green management: environmental management systems inside and outside of the factory. California Management Review, 43(3): 64-84. https://doi.org/10.2307/41166089
[29] Lee, T.W., Ashford, S.J., Walsh, J.P., Mowday, R.T. (1992). Commitment propensity, organizational commitment, and voluntary turnover: A longitudinal study of organizational entry processes. Journal of Management, 18(1): 15-32. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639201800102
[30] Allen, N.J., Meyer, J.P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63(1): 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.1990.tb00506.x
[31] Chun, J.S., Shin, Y., Choi, J.N., Kim, M.S. (2013). How does corporate ethics contribute to firm financial performance? The mediating role of collective organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Management, 39(4): 853-877. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311419662
[32] Benn, S., Teo, S.T., Martin, A. (2015). Employee participation and engagement in working for the environment. Personnel Review, 44(4): 492-510. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-10-2013-0179
[33] Kim, Y.J., Kim, W.G., Choi, H.M., Phetvaroon, K. (2019). The effect of green human resource management on hotel employees’ eco-friendly behavior and environmental performance. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 76: 83-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2018.04.007
[34] Hair Jr, J.F., Sarstedt, M., Hopkins, L., Kuppelwieser, V.G. (2014). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM): An emerging tool in business research. European Business Review, 26(2): 106-121. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-10-2013-0128
[35] Del Brío, J.Á., Fernandez, E., Junquera, B. (2007). Management and employee involvement in achieving an environmental action-based competitive advantage: an empirical study. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18(4): 491-522. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585190601178687
[36] Wong, W.Y. (1998). A holistic perspective on quality quests and quality gains: The role of environment. Total Quality Management, 9(4-5): 241-245. https://doi.org/10.1080/0954412988992
[37] Fernandez, E., Junquera, B., Ordiz, M. (2003). Organization culture and human resources in environmental issues: A literature review. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14: 634-656. https://doi.org/10.1080/0958519032000057628
[38] Harris, L.C., Crane, A. (2002). The greening of organizational culture: Management views on the depth, degree and diffusion of change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 15(3): 214-234. https://doi.org/10.1108/09534810210429273
[39] Subiyantoro, A., Hikmah, K. (2014). KUD Members’ Participation development though society education. European Jurnal of Business and Management, 6: 38. chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/234626115.pdf.
[40] Fahim, F., Khan, N.R., Ahmad, A., Ali, A. (2019). Green human resource management and firm's environmental performance: Mediating role of employee commitment, green involvement and eco-friendly behaviour. Paradigms, 13(2): 18-25. https://doi.org/10.24312/1969130203
[41] Margaretha, M., Saragih, S. (2013). Developing new corporate culture through green human resource practice. In International Conference on Business, Economics, and Accounting, 1(10).
[42] Epstein, M.J., Roy, M.J. (1997). Using ISO 14000 for improved organizational learning and environmental management. Environmental Quality Management, 7(1): 21-30. https://doi.org/10.1002/tqem.3310070103
[43] Riptanti, E.W., Masyhuri, I., Suryantini, A. (2022). The sustainability model of dryland farming in food-insecure regions: structural equation modeling (SEM) approach. International Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning, 17(7): 2033-2043. https://doi.org/10.18280/ijsdp.170704
[44] Ahsan, W.T. (2020). Influence of HR policies on employee motivation of Jamuna Bank Limited. http://hdl.handle.net/10361/13982.
[45] Abed, A.R., Mabdeh, S.N., Nassar, A. (2022). Social sustainability in gated communities versus conventional communities: The case of Amman. International Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning, 17(7): 2141-2151. https://doi.org/10.18280/ijsdp.170714
[46] Nasrulloh, R., Subyantoro, A., Sayekti, A. (2020). The effects of work motivation and information technology on farmers’ performance. Management Science Letters, 10(16): 3741-3748. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.msl.2020.7.038
