Impact of green human resource management towards sustainable performance in the healthcare sector: role of green innovation and risk management

Figures & data

Figure 1. Theoretical framework.

Table 1. Participant specifications (n = 400).

Demographics	n	Percentage (%)
Biological sex
Male	244	61%,
Female	156	39%
Age
20–28 years	121	30%
29–36 years	213	53%
37–44 years or above	66	17%
Occupational position
HR Manager	112	28%
Operational managers	133	33%
Quality assurance managers	126	32%
Other staff	29	7%
Professional experience
1–5 years	141	35%
6–10 years	167	42%
11–15 years or above	92	23%
Hospitals
Fatima Memorial	64	16%
Shareef Complex	58	14%
Mayo	71	18%
Shaikh Zayed	69	17%
Shalamar	78	19%
Ammar Medical Complex	60	15%

Table 2. Factor analysis of constructs.

Constructs	Items	FL	α	CR	AVE	VIF
GHRM practices			0.956	0.963	0.741
Green hiring	GH1	0.837				1.241
	GH2	0.844				2.359
	GH3	0.835				2.545
Green training	GT1	0.942				2.275
	GT2	0.880				1.217
	GT3	0.860				2.561
Green performance assessment	GPA1	0.879				1.781
	GPA2	0.848				2.890
	GPA3	0.816				2.661
Risk management (RM)			0.950	0.962	0.838
	RM1	0.948				3.266
	RM2	0.923				2.439
	RM3	0.968				1.842
	RM4	0.964				2.274
	RM5	0.758				2.836
Green innovation (GI)			0.948	0.958	0.741
	GI1	0.881				2.589
	GI2	0.884				1.416
	GI3	0.835				2.493
	GI4	0.907				2.589
	GI5	0.925				1.516
	GI6	0.910				2.892
Sustainable performance			0.958	0.964	0.690
Social performance	SP1	0.848				1.417
	SP2	0.864				2.655
	SP3	0.885				2.741
	SP4	0.799				1.693
Economic performance	EP1	0.871				2.155
	EP2	0.706				2.561
	EP3	0.866				1.557
	EP4	0.850				1.411
Environmental performance	ENP1	0.914				2.881
	ENP2	0.795				1.778
	ENP3	0.784				2.081
	ENP4	0.759				2.591

Note(s): FL: Factor loading; α: Cronbach’s alpha; VIF: Variance inflation factor; CR: Composite reliability; AVE: Average variance extracted.

Table 3. Discriminant validity.

Variables	1	2	3	4	5
1. GHRMP	0.861
2. GI	0.386	0.891
3. Moderating effect of RM	−0.133	0.181	1.000
4. RM	0.296	0.380	0.044	0.916
5. SP	0.396	0.469	0.109	0.786	0.830

Note(s): GHRMP: Green human resource management practices; GI: Green innovation; RM: Risk management; SP: Sustainable performance.

Figure 2. Valid estimation model (PLS diagram).

Table 4. Summary of structure model.

Path	β-values	Mean	SD	t-values	p-values	Decision
Direct effect
GHRMP → SP (H1)	0.252	0.249	0.049	5.164	0.000	Supported
GHRMP → GI (H2)	0.334	0.339	0.047	7.084	0.000	Supported
GI → SP (H3)	0.372	0.375	0.043	8.707	0.000	Supported
RM → GI (H5)	0.272	0.269	0.051	5.321	0.000	Supported
Mediation effect
GHRMP → GI → SP (H4)	0.124	0.127	0.020	6.092	0.000	Supported
Moderation effect
RM → GI (H6)	0.195	0.200	0.043	4.560	0.000	Supported

Note(s): GHRMP: Green human resource management practices; GI: Green innovation; RM: Risk management; SP: Sustainable performance.

Figure 3. Moderating effect of risk management.

Table A1. Measurement of variables

ID	Questions	Source
GHRM practices
Green hiring
GH1	Green issues specified in job descriptions.	(Renwick et al., 2013)
GH2	Green employer branding (Green employer of choice).
GH3	Firms recruit employees who are green-aware.
Green training
GT1	Training for green jobs and integrated training will create emotional involvement in HRM.
GT2	Green knowledge management using employees’ tacit knowledge in GHRM.
GT3	Training workshops for employees and managers.
Green performance assessment
GPA1	Green performance indicators are included in green performance systems and appraisals.
GPA2	Managers/employees set green targets, goals, and responsibilities.
GPA3	Managers set objectives for achieving green outcomes included in appraisals.
Risk management
RM1	Risks of unreliability and inefficiency of operations and procedures.	(Wijethilake & Lama, 2019)
RM2	Implementing green innovation, risks of losing sustainability-focused key customers
RM3	Risks of losing market for sustainability-focused competitors.
RM4	Risks of sustainability substitute products.
RM5	Risks of losing reputation in investing in projects with sustainability issues.
RM6	Risks of unreliability and inefficiency of operations and procedures.
Green innovation
GI1	Our hospital competes in the market and always uses new technology.	(Asadi et al., 2020)
GI2	Our hospital uses materials that are easy to recycle, reuse, and decompose.
GI3	Our hospital recovers the company’s end-of-life products and recycling.
GI4	Our hospital uses cleaner or renewable technology to make savings (such as energy, water, and waste).
GI5	Our hospital redesigned production and operation processes to improve environmental efficiency.
Sustainable performance
Social performance
SP1	We have improved overall stakeholder welfare.	(Yusliza et al., 2020)
SP2	Improvement in community health and safety.
SP3	It improved the occupational health and safety of employees.
SP4	Improved awareness and protection of the claims and rights of people in the community served.
Environmental performance
EP1	Improved compliance with environmental standards.
EP2	Reduction in energy consumption.
EP3	Reduction in material usage.
EP4	Reduction in the consumption of hazardous materials.
Economic performance
ENP1	Decrease in costs for materials purchasing.
ENP2	Decrease in costs for energy consumption.
ENP3	Decrease in fees for waste discharge.
ENP4	Decrease in fines for environmental accidents.

Renwick, D. W. S., 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

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Wijethilake, C., & Lama, T. (2019). Sustainability core values and sustainability risk management: Moderating effects of top management commitment and stakeholder pressure. Business Strategy and the Environment, 28(1), 143–154. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2245

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Asadi, S., OmSalameh Pourhashemi, S., Nilashi, M., Abdullah, R., Samad, S., Yadegaridehkordi, E., Aljojo, N., & Razali, N. S. (2020). Investigating influence of green innovation on sustainability performance: A case on Malaysian hotel industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 258, 120860. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120860

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Yusliza, M. Y., Yong, J. Y., Tanveer, M. I., Ramayah, T., Noor Faezah, J., & Muhammad, Z. (2020). A structural model of the impact of green intellectual capital on sustainable performance. Journal of Cleaner Production, 249, 119334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119334

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Data availability statement

Data can be obtained upon reasonable request.