CC BY
16
« DOI: 10.29141/2218-5003-2021-12-3-5 d JEL Classification: M12, M14, Q52, Q57
■H
s
¿ Analysis of the environmental employee engagement: § A case of a Russian enterprise
g Galina S. Arzamasova1, Irena A. Esaulova1
ea
2 1 Perm National Research Polytechnic University, Perm, Russia £
Abstract. The current trend in environmentally oriented business is towards the recognition of the decisive role of personnel in ensuring environmental sustainability, which results in increased attention to the problems of employee engagement in solving the company's environmental problems. However, there is a significant methodological gap in understanding the phenomenon of environmental engagement and methods of its analysis and assessment. The study theoretically substantiates the concept of environmental employee engagement and analyses it using the case study of a Russian enterprise whose activities are committed with significant impact on the environment. Methodologically, the research rests on the concepts of Green Human Resource Management (GHRM) and environmental behavior. A personnel survey was conducted based on the authors' model of environmental engagement, which includes three components: normative, voluntary and potential. The sample included 1,430 employees of the oil and gas industry in Perm krai. The statistical analysis was carried out for the enterprise as a whole, as well as for particular branches and divisions. The study yielded estimates of the environmental employee engagement (EEE) and identified key factors and practices contributing to high employee commitment to environmental values and protection. The results and conclusions encourage the development of tools for researching the environmental behavior of personnel, and can be of use for theoretical and empirical research in the field of GHRM, as well as for practitioners in the analysis and development of HRM models for the purposes of environmental development of the organization.
Keywords: Green Human Resource Management (GHRM); environmental management; environmental employee behavior; environmental employee engagement (EEE); personnel. Paper submitted: March 9, 2021
For citation: Arzamasova G.S., Esaulova I.A. (2021). Analysis of the environmental employee engagement: A case of a Russian enterprise. Upravlenets - The Manager, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 56-66. DOI: 10.29141/2218-5003-2021-12-3-5.
Анализ экологической вовлеченности персонала: кейс российского предприятия
Г.С. Арзамасова1, И.А. Эсаулова1
1 Пермский национальный исследовательский политехнический университет, г. Пермь, РФ
Аннотация. Общей тенденцией в экологически ориентированном бизнесе становится признание решающей роли персонала в обеспечении экологической устойчивости и, как следствие, повышенное внимание к проблемам формирования вовлеченности сотрудников в решение экологических задач компании. Однако существует значительный методологический пробел в понимании сущности экологической вовлеченности, выборе методик ее исследования и способов оценки. Статья посвящена теоретическому обоснованию экологической вовлеченности персонала и ее анализу в условиях предприятия, деятельность которого связана со значительными воздействиями на окружающую среду. Методологический базис исследования составили концепции экологического управления человеческими ресурсами (УЧР) и экологического поведения. Методика включала опрос персонала на основе авторской модели экововлечен-ности, содержащей нормативную, добровольную и потенциальную составляющие. В выборку вошли 1 430 сотрудников предприятия нефтегазовой отрасли Пермского края; статистический анализ проводился как в целом по предприятию, так и в разрезе отдельных филиалов и подразделений. Даны оценки экововлеченности персонала, а также выявлены основные факторы и практики, содействующие высокой приверженности сотрудников экологическим ценностям и охране окружающей среды. Полученные результаты вносят вклад в развитие инструментария изучения экологического поведения персонала и могут быть полезны для теоретических и эмпирических исследований в области экологического УЧР, а также при диагностике и разработке моделей управления персоналом с целью экологического развития организации.
Ключевые слова: экологическое управление человеческими ресурсами; экологический менеджмент; экологическое поведение сотрудников; экологическая вовлеченность персонала; персонал. Дата поступления статьи: 9 марта 2021 г.
Ссылка для цитирования: Арзамасова Г.С., Эсаулова И.А. (2021). Анализ экологической вовлеченности персонала: кейс российского предприятия // Управленец. Т. 12, № 3. С. 56-66. РО!: 10.29141/2218-5003-2021-12-3-5.
INTRODUCTION
Many companies meet the requirements of green economy and pay more attention to environmental issues, including their mission and corporate strategies [Potrich, Cortimiglia, Medeiros, 2019]. However, the development of corporate environmental management systems (EMS), technical and technological measures for environmental protection make a minimal contribution to the achievement of long-term environmental goals and are not sufficient for the sustainable development of companies [Fet, 2006; Aragón-Correa, Martín-Tapia, Hurtado-Torres, 2013; Renwick et al., 2015]. Problems, incidents and difficulties with the implementation of environmental initiatives and new technologies arise mainly due to systematic staff-related errors, such as poor understanding by employees of the enterprise's environmental policy and the lack of environmental information, their reluctance and unwillingness to accept innovations, incomprehension of the environmental consequences of their actions, as well as violation of the established requirements and rules [Bunge, CohenRosenthal, Ruiz-Quintanilla, 1996; Jabbour, Santos, Nagano, 2010; Arzamasova, Esaulova, 2020].
Due to the complexity of environmental problems and the high-risk component associated with the behavior of personnel, it is necessary that employees voluntarily contribute to the environmental activities of the enterprise, participate in the exchange of tacit knowledge and implement solutions for environmental protection [Boiral, Pille, 2012; Saeed et al., 2018]. In ISO 14001:2015 «Environmental management systems - Requirements with guidance for use», the commitment of employees at all levels and departments is seen as a key factor in the success of the company's EMS. However, in EMS, the role of personnel is strongly and unjustifiably underestimated, employees' personal values in relation to the environment are not fully utilized, which, in turn, leads to the fact that environmental improvements and innovations become difficult to implement and are exclusively economically motivated without taking into account social and environmental goals of companies [Govindarajulu, Daily, 2004; Del Brio, Fernandez, Junquera, 2007; Ahmad, 2015].
The problems of personnel greening cannot be regarded as a new direction of foreign scientific research in the field of Green Human Resource Management (GHRM)1; however, the issues of environmental employee engagement (EEE) today are, on the one hand, extremely relevant for companies [Du-mont, Shen, Deng, 2016; Renwick, 2020, p. 41], and, on the other hand, it is a completely new topic even
1 Green Human Recourse Management (GHRM) refers to a new direction of theory and practice of staff management that combines the spheres of human resources and environmental management.
for researchers and practitioners in HRM [Amrutha, í¡ Geetha, 2020]. The very phenomenon of EEE, as well I as the factors and conditions that form it, are still in- g sufficiently theoretically and empirically grounded 2 [Benn, Teo, Martin, 2015; Potoski, Callery, 2018; Del § Brio, Fernandez, Junquera, 2007, p. 492]. To date, g there is not a single study in Russian science devoted ¡Si to either the involvement of personnel in environ- £
u
mental activities, or to broader issues of environ- 5 mental behavior, although this problem has already H been recognized by scientists at the level of setting S individual applied objectives, but not at the level of a holistic methodology or empirical research [Arzamasova, Esaulova, 2020]. Thus, the purpose of the article is to theoretically substantiate the concept of EEE and analyze it using the case study of an enterprise whose activities are associated with significant environmental impacts. Following this goal, first, we perform an analysis of the literature on the problems under review; then, the paper presents a methodology for studying EEE and discusses its results; and finally, it formulates conclusions and recommendations for future research and application in the HRM practice at enterprises.
ENVIRONMENTAL BEHAVIOR AND EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT
Over the past decades, the topic of employee engagement has been widely discussed by both scientists and practitioners in the field of HR management, since it is engagement that is a significant factor in the economic efficiency of organizations, and the measures to increase it are an effective management tool [Apenko, Fomina, 2019; Konovalova, 2016; Kulkova, Nikolayev, 2016; Sun, Bunchapattanasakda, 2019]. It is not surprising that scientific community was optimistic about these provisions as a new look at the green behavior of employees, opening up real prospects for the development of theory and practice of GHRM [Saeed et al., 2018; Dumont, Shen, Deng, 2016]. Today, employee engagement is positioned as a key condition for the successful implementation of a proactive approach in environmental management. Despite this, the topic of involvement in environmental activities is still virtually unexplored [Renwick, 2020; Subha, Brown, 2015; Teixeira et al., 2016].
An analysis of scientific works devoted to employees' engagement in environmental protection activities showed the absence of a methodological platform in the area. Thus, studies use concepts such as "green employee engagement", "green employee involvement", "environmental involvement", "environmental employee engagement" [Subha, Brown, 2015; Benn, Teo, Martin, 2015; Veleva, Bodkin, Todorova, 2017]. However, it can be argued that these concepts are not synonymous, since they are associated with different manifestations of employee complicity in the organi-
2 zation's environmental activities. In addition, the direct
3 transfer of the generally accepted engagement meth-£ odology to the conceptual basis of GHRM proved to g be difficult, primarily due to the specificity of environ-£ mental behavior.
u
Su Employee green or environmental behavior (EEB) is I defined, on the one hand, as environmentally friend-1 ly behavior in the workplace that contributes to the achievement of the company's core business goals in the field of environmental sustainability [Stern, 2000, p. 417], and on the other, as behavior through which employees demonstrate their willingness to cooperate with the company and its members, demonstrating behavior in the workplace that benefits the natural environment [Boiral, Paillé, 2012, p. 432]. Following this logic, Norton et al. [2015, p. 104] identified two types of EEB:
1) required EEB is the behavior prescribed by the organization, which is compulsory within the framework of official duties and provides for compliance with the organizational environmental policy and technologies;
2) voluntary EEB is the behavior that transcends job responsibilities and includes initiating changes in work practices, active participation in environmental programs and projects, support for colleagues and other activities that contribute to the organizational, social and psychological environment of an environmentally oriented business.
The first type shows a normative model of the work role, which implies the fulfillment of formal requirements aimed at reducing or preventing negative environmental impacts [Boiral, 2009; Aboramadan, 2020]. The second type demonstrates "supra-role" (extra-normative) activities for environmental protection, but not required by job functions [Daily, Bishop, Govin-darajulu, 2009]. It is argued that employees with a high level of voluntary EEB can motivate the environmental behavior of colleagues and their participation in environmental initiatives [Aboramadan, 2020].
According to Boiral and Paillé [2012, p. 431], the "supra-role" EEB demonstrates an employee's willingness to contribute to environmental sustainability and reflects:
1) environmental initiatives of employees (for example, saving energy resources, separate waste collec-
tion, etc.) that contribute to improving the operational efficiency and environmental performance of the company;
2) promotion of the company's green activities through participation in organized environmental events, promoting the company's environmental image and voluntary participation in green events (forums, conferences, etc.).
3) cooperation and communication between employees in solving environmental problems is an important condition for effective environmental action in the workplace as these activities often require a cross-functional approach, a voluntary exchange of knowledge and experience, and informal training for new employees.
The characteristics of the behavior inherent in the required and voluntary types of EEB are presented in Table 1.
The EEB dual nature determines its specificity, because the required and voluntary types work together to create a unique combination of professional and individual behavioral attributes forming the EEB model that green companies expect from their employees, including:
1) performing official duties in strict compliance with environmental standards and requirements;
2) active participation in the company's environmental initiatives and projects;
3) personal initiatives that proactively contribute to improving the company's environmental performance, etc.
The level of the EEB model implementation depends on the degree of employee engagement that contributes most to personal and corporate environmental results [Hanna, Newman, Johnson, 2018] and goes beyond a formal understanding of environmental management goals or formal demonstration of proactive behavior towards the environment as a whole [Rothenberg, 2003].
Environmental employee engagement is objectively related to different cognitive, motivational and emotional aspects based on personal environmental values and interests of employees [Glavas, 2016; Jackson et al., 2011; Renwick et al., 2015]. Therefore, EEE can be defined as an employee's active participation in the
Table 1 - Types and parameters of EEB Таблица 1 - Типы и параметры экологического поведения сотрудника
EEB type Parameters
Required Employee has a positive perception of the company's environmental values and actions. Employee consciously and responsibly follows the environmental requirements and recommendations in the workplace
Voluntary Employee makes suggestions for improving the company's environmental performance on their own initiative. Employee voluntarily participates in environmental events and promotions organized by the company and contributes to the promotion of the company's environmental image. Employee provides assistance and support for colleagues in tackling environmental problems in the workplace
implementation of environmental policies and organizational goals manifested in the motivation to achieve these goals and the desire to make a positive contribution to environmental initiatives and innovations in the field of environmental protection.
In theoretical and empirical studies on GHRM, the reasons behind EEE are explained in different ways. According to some scholars, the high level of EEE is a consequence of HRM practices such as environmental training, awareness, rewarding environmental performance [Renwick et al., 2015; Jabbour, Santos, Nagano, 2010]. Other researchers argue that EEE depends on value attitudes, competencies, trust in efforts of the management to protect environment and improve morale, behavior and relationships between employees, communication systems, motivation, etc. Therefore, EEE can be increased through the environment culture, teamwork and autonomous groups created to solve environmental problems [Del Brio, Fernandez, Junquera, 2007; Hanna, Newman, Johnson, 2018; Paille et al., 2014; Potoski, Callery, 2018].
The variety of EEE mechanisms makes it necessary to study the sources and factors of EEE that affect the interest of employees in achieving environmental performance and proactive resolving of companies' environmental problems.
RESEARCH METHOD
The EEE model was formed on the basis of the typology of EEB described above, including the required and voluntary EEBs [Norton et al., 2015]. The first type of EEB demonstrates its normative model and is easily identified using the questionnaire from the previous study [Arzamasova, Malysheva, 2019]. The voluntary EEB ("supra-role") requires more differentiation, because such behavior is internally motivated and completely controlled by the employee [Esaulova, 2014]. From this viewpoint, regulated and unregulated EEBs were distinguished. The former is an employee's actions (e.g. participation in environmental programs) that support the company's environmental initiatives. The latter is an employee's proactivity, which is expressed in various forms of proactive behavior and potential willingness to take initiative by proposing, promoting and implementing
environmental innovations. As a result, the structural EEE model was developed (Fig. 1).
In accordance with the model, three evaluation blocks were formed (see Fig. 1):
1) required EEB. The employee is aware of environmental policy, environmental protection, environmental programs and activities. The employee understands environmental issues and their importance for the enterprise's development. The employee takes action to reduce the negative impact on the environment in the workplace;
2) voluntary regulated EEB. The employee discusses environmental issues and solutions with colleagues and makes proposals. The employee takes part in environmental events on his/her own initiative;
3) voluntary unregulated EEB. The employee is ready to make proposals for dealing with environmental issues and problems, as well as to take part in environmental events, contests and company initiatives.
Then, real and potential EEE were calculated. Real EEE was computed through indicators of the required and voluntary regulated EEB, whereas potential EEE was measured through indicators of voluntary unregulated EEB. The final indicators were assessed within the following ranges: "low" is less than 50 %, "medium" is from 50 % to 75 %, and "high" is more than 75 %.
The study was carried out at an oil and gas company in Perm krai (Russia) in 2018-2019. The study involved 1,430 employees of all age groups with work experience of 1 year or more from all - administrative, production and non-production - departments, including managers, specialists and workers. The statistical analysis was performed for the entire enterprise, as well as its divisions individually. To collect data, the authors applied their own EEE quantitative assessment methodology [Arzamasova, Malysheva, 2019] with the use of a software developed at the enterprise specifically for the study. However, the approach to measuring EEE was changed since the results of the previous study in the form of the EEE general level [Arzamasova, Malysheva, 2019] were not informative enough to understand the reasons and factors influencing the activity of employees in environmental innovations.
Fig. 1. Structural EEE model Рис. 1. Структурная модель экологической вовлеченности персонала
6 • Управление человеческими ресурсами
â RESEARCH RESULTS
S The results of the staff survey showed that the average £ level of real EEE (required and voluntary regulated EEBs g taken together) was 63.9 %. What stands out in the re-£ search results is a strong imbalance in particular indica-£ tors for individual EEB blocks: with a high level of the < regulatory component (87.4 %), voluntary regulated EEB g was only 40.3 %, and the potential EEE turned out to be extremely low - 32.5 % (Table 2). Consequently, despite realizing the importance of environmental protection and complying with environmental regulations in the workplace, more than half of the employees were not disposed to environmental actions and initiatives beyond the scope of their job responsibilities.
Next, we measured the real and potential EEE in the context of the enterprise's divisions, the levels of which varied from 62.1 % to 64.2 %, respectively (Table 3).
The lowest potential EEE was recorded among the management staff (32.4 %), who, compared with the personnel from other divisions, were notably less concerned about environmental problems and were not particularly interested in participation in additional environmental activities (27 %) (Fig. 2). At the same time, they were ready to participate in improving the environmental and nature protection programs implemented at the enterprise (60 %) (Fig. 3).
Table 2 - Assessment of the EEE level Таблица 2 - Оценка уровня экологической вовлеченности персонала
EEB type EEE indicator Quantitative assessment, % Average value, %
Real EEE 63.9
Required EEB Employees are aware of the environment and environmental risks of the company 81 87.4
Employees are aware of the company's environmental issues 80
Employees recognize environmental issues as important to the company's development and functioning 94
Employees are aware of the company's environmental activities and projects 98
Employees take actions in their professional activities in order to reduce the negative impact on the environment 84
Voluntary regulated EEB Employees discuss environmental issues and solutions with colleagues 50 40.3
Employees make proposals of environmental significance 28
Took part in environmental actions aimed at improving the environment on personal initiative 43
Potential EEE 32.5
Voluntary unregulated EEB Employees are ready to make suggestions for solving environmental issues and problems 16 32.5
Employees are ready to take part in environmental campaigns, competitions and initiatives 49
Table 3 - Real and potential EEE Таблица 3 - Реальная и потенциальная экологическая вовлеченность персонала
Division Real EEE, % Potential EEE, %
Management department 62.3 32.4
Production divisions 64.2 41.1
Non-production units 62.1 35.1
Weighted average 62.3 38.7
100 80 60 40 20
40.0
27.0
20.0
13.0
Management department
Non-production units
Production divisions
Did not participate
■ Expressed interest in environmental issues Initiated an environmental event
■ Tagged along with colleagues Delegated by the supervisor
■ Immediate job responsibilities
Fig. 2. Employee participation in additional activities aimed at drawing attention to environmental protection issues (campaigns, competitions, seminars, etc.), % Рис. 2. Участие персонала в дополнительных мероприятиях, направленных на привлечение внимания к вопросам охраны окружающей среды (акции, конкурсы, семинары и др.), °%
50 40 30 20 10 0
30.0
172.8
30.0
I
24.4
28.2
Willing to make proposals
43.6
45.3
30.0
I
Willing to make proposals, but my opinion does not matter
7 9.2
10.0
11.6
Management department
Non-production units
Production divisions
No, Not aware
I am not of any environmental
interested programs of the enterprise
Fig. 3. Willingness to make proposals to the mandatory environmental programs implemented at the enterprise, % Рис. 3. Готовность вносить предложения в реализуемые на предприятии программы обязательных экологических мероприятий, °%
M
о
M
et
ЕЕ
if
et а.
The average values of real and potential EEE in the non-production units amounted to 62.1 % and 35.1 %, respectively. Interestingly, despite a lower level of awareness of environmental programs and activities (19.2 %), the employees of these departments showed as much interest in environmental problems as the production personnel (41.5 %), but less often expressed readiness to participate in extra environmental activities (35 %).
The highest value of real EEE is observed among the personnel of the production divisions, which is due to their focus and direct participation in tackling environmental problems in their daily work. Moreover, the indicator of potential EEE (41.1 %) turned out to be significantly higher than in other divisions and the enterprise average (38.7 %). According to the survey results, the majority of the production departments' employees (80 %) believe that they are completely aware of and comprehend the environmental challenges faced by the enterprise; 85 % of the production departments' staff suppose that, compared with other units, they are more frequently involved in reducing the adverse impact on the environment; participate in additional environmental activities (50 %); discuss environmental issues with colleagues and ways to address them (57.4 %); but at the same time, they rarely make proposals of environmental significance (28.3 %).
Fig. 2 shows that this is employees of the production departments (5.7 %) who most often initiate environmental measures by paying more attention to environmental problems (43.6 %). It is noteworthy that virtually half of the company's employees did not evince interest in improving environmental programs and measures, while a third of the personnel expressed doubts about the significance of their proposals (Fig. 3).
One of the main indicators of voluntary EEE is the participation of employees in additional environmental activities, which fall outside their job responsibilities and are implemented during off-duty hours. The survey showed that more than 90 % of respondents participated in such events, but the reasons behind
that vary greatly. For example, if an employee is delegated to the event by their supervisor, we are talking about required EEB, since subordinates often perceive their manager's request as a work assignment. On the other hand, if a staff member tagged along with their colleagues, we mean passively discretionary EEE, when employees are more focused on friendly ties and team relationships than on their own environmental interests and values.
At the next stage of the study, the EEE factors were established based on the aggregate answers of all the respondents. The employees indicated that their behavior and environmental performance are greatly affected by personal motives and environment-related values, the degree of environmental awareness and material incentives. At the same time, among the least significant factors are the management leadership and company values, the system of communications and interaction, as well as forms and types of non-material incentives (Table 4).
Table 4 - Factors of EEE Таблица 4 - Факторы экологической вовлеченности
персонала
Rank Factor Average value, %
1 Personal environmental values and motives 70
2 Degree of environmental awareness and the flow of information 66
3 Material incentives 63
4 Management leadership and company values 44
s System of communication and interaction 37
6 Non-material incentives 37
Such a distribution of the EEE factors is typical of all the enterprise's divisions (Fig. 4), however, with certain differences. For instance, the management staff are more focused on wage bonuses and lump-sum payments for achieving certain environmental results than on non-material incentives, whereas non-finan-
cial motivation is as important for the personnel of the production and non-production units as material
p incentives.
M
о
M
Personal environmental values and motives
Non-material incentives
Material incentives
Degree of environmental awareness and the flow of information
System of communication and interaction
Management leadership and company values
Management department Production divisions
Non-production units Hr- Enterprise average
Fig. 4. Factors of EEE by the enterprise's divisions, % Рис. 4. Факторы экологической вовлеченности персонала по подразделениям предприятия, °%
Having analyzed the obtained results, we arrived at the following conclusions:
1) the level of EEE at the enterprise is average, and this is characteristic of all its departments, regardless of whether they are engaged in processes adversely affecting the environment or not. At the same time, the employees directly confronted with environmental issues in their daily professional activities demonstrate the greatest potential EEE;
2) the employees show varying degrees of interest in participating in additional environmental activities of the enterprise. Here, the personnel of the production departments are also most involved. Based on the total number of staff members who take part in such events on their own initiative, we can talk about the effectiveness and efficiency of these measures, especially in relation to the employees of the production and non-production units;
3) communication tools, non-financial incentives and the nature of in-company relationships exert the minimal impact on environmental employee engagement at the enterprise under review.
The interpretation indicates that the mentioned organizational factors have a moderate effect on the interest and readiness of the staff to participate in the environmental activities of the enterprise. As part of the survey, respondents were asked to express their views in free form on measures aimed at improving the environmental performance of the organization.
Most responses offered suggestions of a technical nature; however, 10 % of the questionnaires mentioned measures associated with personnel participation in resolving environmental issues, such as:
• enhancing the involvement of all employees in settling environmental issues, as well as treating the environment with respect;
• holding quarterly organizational meetings on environmental issues;
• engaging all employees in the implementation of environmental programs;
• changing the procedure for evaluating efficiency suggestions in terms of their impact on the environment;
• improving the methods of employee financial motivation for implementing environmental projects, etc.
The results of the survey and the employees' proposals allow us to conclude that not only the management, but also the employees are changing their attitude towards their role in solving environmental issues at the enterprise. In the course of the survey, there was not a single answer we obtained that would mirror the employees' negative attitude to their environmental obligations and work requirements. In addition, there is an obvious change in the employees' individual environmental values, which form a strong motivational basis for their environmental behavior.
CONCLUSION
The analysis of the existing works on GHRM showed that the least studied and most difficult research and applied task is to measure and assess the level of EEE, as an indicator characterizing the degree of employee engagement in achieving environmental and organizational goals. The authors have presented their own approach to this problem in the form of a new research structure, which encompasses, on the one hand, assessing the direct participation of staff members in resolving environmental problems (real EEE), and, on the other hand, evaluating the potential readiness of employees for personal environmental initiatives and active assistance in the implementation of environmental policy and innovations in the company (potential EEE). Such an approach allows focusing on the internal motivation of personnel to environment-oriented activities, which is the driving force behind the active and voluntary participation of employees in responding to environmental challenges.
The research results contribute to the theoretical substantiation of the EEE nature, which is characterized by the presence of required and voluntary components of individual demeanor, which makes it possible to create new approaches to studying the mechanisms and factors in employee environmental behavior. The testing of the proposed model at a large industrial enterprise has proved it to be useful for determining EEE. It expands the opportunities for developing practical EEE solutions for solving specific environmental prob-
lems, as well as participating in particular environmental processes and initiatives due to the employees' potential readiness for individual environmental initiatives.
The present research has a number of limitations. Firstly, the survey was conducted at only one enterprise, which narrows the significance of its results to one industry. Secondly, no study was performed on
the cause-and-effect relationships between the ob- ° tained EEE indicators and the outcome of the enter- 3 prise's environmental activities. Thirdly, the research I did not cover organizational factors, which may have a g constraining effect on the EEE level. Consequently, the 2 findings can deviate from the empirical evidence that < are possible to obtain in a broader research context. ■ g
u
E
*
U
z
u
u
5
QS
a.
References
Apenko S.N., Fomina Yu.A. (2019). Otsenka zrelosti ustoychivogo (zelenogo) proyektnogo upravleniya [Maturity assessment of sustainable (green) project management]. Natsional'naya bezopasnost' i strategicheskoye planirovaniye - National Security and Strategic Planning, vol. 4, no. 28, pp. 44-50.
Arzamasova G.S., Esaulova I.A. (2020). Green human resource management — kontseptsiya upravleniya chelovecheskimi resursami ekologicheski otvetstvennogo biznesa [Green Human Resource Management as a concept of human resources management of environmentally responsible business]. Vestnik NGUEU - Vestnik NSUEM, no. 2, pp. 42-53. https://doi. org/10.34020/2073-6495-2020-2-042-053.
Arzamasova G.S., Malysheva I.A. (2019). Analiz i otsenka urovnya vovlechennosti personala v protsessy prirodookhrannoy deyatel'nosti na promyshlennom predpriyatii [Analysis and assessment of the level of employee engagement in the processes of environmental protection at an industrial enterprise]. Modernizatsiya i nauchnyye issledovaniya v transportnom komplekse - Modernization and Research in the Transport Complex, no. 1, pp. 194-197.
Konovalova V.G. (2016). Povysheniye urovnya vovlechennosti rabotnikov: usloviya, preimushchestva i problemy [Increasing the level of employee involvement: Conditions, advantages and problems]. Vestnik Samarskogo gosudarstvennogo ekonom-icheskogo universiteta - Vestnik of Samara State University of Economics, no. 11(145), pp. 74-78.
Kulkova I.A., Nikolayev N.A. (2016). Metodicheskiye polozheniya po otsenke i razvitiyu faktorov formirovaniya vovlechennosti personala v deyatel'nost' predpriyatiya [Methodical guidelines on evaluation and development of formation factors of personnel involvement in the company activity]. Izvestiya Ural'skogo gosudarstvennogo gornogo universiteta - News of the Ural State Mining University, no. 4(44), pp. 88-93. DOI: 10.21440/2307-2091-2016-4-88-93.
Esaulova I.A. (2014). Motivatsionnyy mekhanizm samorazvitiya sotrudnikov kak faktor innovatsionnogo razvitiya organizatsii [Motivational mechanism of self-development of employees as a factor in the innovative development of an organization]. Izvestiya vysshikh uchebnykh zavedeniy. Seriya «Ekonomika, finansy i upravleniye proizvodstvom» - Izvestiya of Higher Educational Institutions. Series: Economics. Finance. Production Management, no. 1(19), pp. 68-71.
Aboramadan M. (2020). The effect of green HRM on employee green behaviors in higher education: The mediating mechanism of green work engagement. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, vol. ahead-of-print, no. ahead-of-print. https:// doi.org/10.1108/IJ0A-05-2020-2190.
Ahmad S. (2015). Green Human Resource Management: Policies and practices. Cogent Business & Management, vol. 2, issue 1, pp. 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2015.1030817.
Amrutha V.N., Geetha S.N. (2020). A systematic review on green human resource management: Implications for social sustain-ability. Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 247, 20 February 2020, 119131. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119131.
Aragón-Correa J.A., Martín-Tapia I., Hurtado-Torres N.E. (2013). Proactive environmental strategies and employee inclusion. Organization & Environment, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 139-161. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026613489034.
Benn S., Teo S.T.T., Martin A. (2015). Employee participation and engagement in working for the environment. Personnel Review, vol. 44, no. 4, pp. 492-510. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-10-2013-0179.
Boiral O. (2009). Greening the corporation through organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 87, no. 2, pp. 221-236. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-008-9881-2.
Boiral O., Paillé P. (2012). Organizational citizenship behaviour for the environment: Measurement and validation. Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 109, no. 4, pp. 431-445. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-011-1138-9.
Bunge J., Cohen-Rosenthal E., Ruiz-Quintanilla A. (1996). Employee participation in pollution reduction: Preliminary analysis of the Toxics Release Inventory. Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 9-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-6526(96)00006-6.
Daily B.F., Bishop J.W., Govindarajulu N. (2009). A conceptual model for organizational citizenship behavior directed toward the environment. Business & Society, vol. 48, no. 2, pp. 243-256. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650308315439.
Del Brio J., Fernandez E., Junquera B. (2007). Management and employee involvement in achieving an environmental action based competitive advantage: An empirical study. International Journal of Human Resource Management, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 491-522. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585190601178687.
« Dumont J., Shen J., Deng X. (2016). Effects of green HRM practices on employee workplace green behavior: The role of psy-^ chological green climate and employee green values. Human Resource Management, vol. 56, no. 4, pp. 613-627. https://doi. s org/10.1002/hrm.21792.
^ Fet A.M. (2006). Environmental management and corporate social responsibility. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, 3 vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 217-218. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-006-0068-1.
=r Glavas A. (2016). Corporate social responsibility and employee engagement: Enabling employees to employ more of their ш whole selves at work. Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 7, pp. 1-10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00796. < Govindarajulu N., Daily B.F. (2004). Motivating employees for environmental improvement. Industrial Management & Data Sys-I tems, vol. 101, no. 4, pp. 364-372. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02635570410530775.
Hanna M.D., Newman W.R., Johnson P. (2018). Linking operational and environmental improvement through employee involvement. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 148-165. DOI: 10.1108/01443570010304233.
Jabbour C.J.C., Santos F.C.A., Nagano M.S. (2010). Contributions of HRM throughout the stages of environmental management: Methodological triangulation applied to companies in Brazil. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, vol. 21, no. 7, pp. 1049-1089. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585191003783512.
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, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 99-116. https://doi.org/10.1177/239700221102500203.
Norton T.A., Parker S.L., Zacher H., Ashkanasy N.M. (2015). Employee green behavior: A theoretical framework, multilevel review, andfuture research agenda. Organization Environment, vol. 28, no. 1, pp.103-125. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026615575773.
Paille P., Chen Y., Boiral O., Jin J. (2014). The impact of human resource management on environmental performance: An employee-level study. Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 121, pp. 451-466. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-013-1732-0.
Potoski M., Callery P.J. (2018). Peer communication improves environmental employee engagement programs: Evidence from a quasi-experimental field study. Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 172, pp. 1486-1500. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.252 0959-6526.
Potrich L., Cortimiglia M.N., Medeiros J.F. (2019). A systematic literature review on firm-level proactive environmental management. Journal of Environmental Management, vol. 243, pp. 273-286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.04.110.
Renwick D.W.S., Jabbour C.J.C., Muller-Camen M., Redman T., Wilkinson A. (2015). Contemporary developments in Green (environmental) HRM scholarship. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 1-15. https://doi. org/10.1080/09585192.2015.1105844.
Renwick D. (ed.). (2020). Contemporary developments in green human resource management research: Towards sustainability in action? Routledge.
Rothenberg S. (2003). Knowledge content and worker participation in environmental management at NUMMI. Journal of Management Studies, vol. 40, no. 7, pp. 1783-1802. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.00400.
Saeed B.B., Afsar B., Hafeez S., Khan I., Tahir M., Afridi M.A. (2018). Promoting employee's proenvironmental behavior through green human resource management practices. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 424-438. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1694.
Stern P.C. (2000). Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues, vol. 56, pp. 407-424. DOI: 10.1111/0022-4537.00175.
Subha D.P., Brown K. (2015). Effect of High Involvement Work System on Green HRM: A conceptual paper on engaging employees in Environment Management. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324075619.
Sun L., Bunchapattanasakda C. (2019). Employee engagement: A literature review. International Journal of Human Resource Studies, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 63-80. DOI: 10.5296/ijhrs.v9i1.14167.
Teixeira A.A., Jabbour C.J.C., de Sousa Jabbour A.B.L., Latan H., de Oliveira J.H.C. (2016). Green training and green supply chain management: Evidence from Brazilian firms. Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 116, pp. 170-176. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.
Veleva V., Bodkin G., Todorova S. (2017). The need for better measurement and employee engagement to advance a circular economy: Lessons from Biogen's "zero waste" journey. Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 154, pp. 517-529. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.177.
Источники
Апенько С.Н., Фомина Ю.А. Оценка зрелости устойчивого (зеленого) проектного управления // Национальная безопасность и стратегическое планирование. 2019. № 4(28). С. 44-50.
Арзамасова Г.С., Малышева И.А. Анализ и оценка уровня вовлеченности персонала в процессы природоохранной деятельности на промышленном предприятии // Модернизация и научные исследования в транспортном комплексе. 2019. Т. 1. С. 194-197.
Арзамасова Г.С., Эсаулова И.А. Green human resource management - концепция управления человеческими ресурсами экологически ответственного бизнеса // Вестник НГУЭУ. № 2. С. 42-53. DOI: 10.34020/2073-6495-2020-2-042-053.
Коновалова В.Г. Повышение уровня вовлеченности работников: условия, преимущества и проблемы // Вестник Самарского государственного экономического университета. 2016. № 11(145). С. 74-78.
Кулькова И.А., Николаев Н.А. Методические положения по оценке и развитию факторов формирования вовлеченности персонала в деятельность предприятия // Известия Уральского государственного горного университета. 2016. № 4(44). С. 88-93.
Эсаулова И.А. Мотивационный механизм саморазвития сотрудников как фактор инновационного развития органи- ™ зации // Известия высших учебных заведений. Серия «Экономика, финансы и управление производством». 2C14. ^ № 1(19). С. 68-71. Il
Aboramadan M. (2C2C). The effect of green HRM on employee green behaviors in higher education: The mediating mechanism ^ of green work engagement. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, vol. ahead-of-print, no. ahead-of-print. https:// о doi.org/1C.11C8/IJOA-C5-2C2C-219C. g
Ahmad S. (2015). Green Human Resource Management: Policies and practices. Cogent Business А Management, vol. 2, issue 1, < pp. 1-13. https://doi.org/1C.1C8C/23311975.2C15.1C3C817. ¡
Amrutha V.N., Geetha S.N. (2C2C). A systematic review on green human resource management: Implications for social sustain- jjj ability. Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 247, 2C February 2C2C, 119131. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119131. £
Aragón-Correa J.A., Martín-Tapia I., Hurtado-Torres N.E. (2C13). Proactive environmental strategies and employee inclusion. Or- z ganization А Environment, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 139-161. https://doi.org/1C.1177/1C86C26613489C34. £
Benn S., Teo S.T.T., Martin A. (2015). Employee participation and engagement in working for the environment. Personnel Review, « vol. 44, no. 4, pp. 492-510. https://doi.org/1C.11C8/PR-1C-2C13-C179. =
Boiral O. (2CC9). Greening the corporation through organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 87, no. 2, pp. 221-236. DOI: 1C.1CC7/s1C551-CC8-9881-2.
Boiral O., Paillé P. (2C12). Organizational citizenship behaviour for the environment: Measurement and validation. Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 1C9, no. 4, pp. 431-445. DOI: 1C.1CC7/s1C551-C11-1138-9.
Bunge J., Cohen-Rosenthal E., Ruiz-Quintanilla A. (1996). Employee participation in pollution reduction: Preliminary analysis of the Toxics Release Inventory. Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 9-16. https://doi.org/1C.1C16/SC959-6526(96)CCCC6-6.
Daily B.F., Bishop J.W., Govindarajulu N. (2CC9). A conceptual model for organizational citizenship behavior directed toward the environment. Business А Society, vol. 48, no. 2, pp. 243-256. https://doi.org/1C.1177/CCC765C3C8315439.
Del Brio J., Fernandez E., Junquera B. (2CC7). Management and employee involvement in achieving an environmental action based competitive advantage: An empirical study. International Journal of Human Resource Management, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 491-522. https://doi.org/1C.1C8C/C958519C6C1178687.
Dumont J., Shen J., Deng X. (2C16). Effects of green HRM practices on employee workplace green behavior: The role of psychological green climate and employee green values. Human Resource Management, vol. 56, no. 4, pp. 613-627. https://doi. org/10.1002/hrm.21792.
Fet A.M. (2CC6). Environmental management and corporate social responsibility. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 217-218. https://doi.org/1C.1CC7/s1CC98-CC6-CC68-1.
Glavas A. (2C16). Corporate social responsibility and employee engagement: Enabling employees to employ more of their whole selves at work. Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 7, pp. 1-1C. https://doi.org/1C.3389/fpsyg.2C16.CC796.
Govindarajulu N., Daily B.F. (2CC4). Motivating employees for environmental improvement. Industrial Management А Data Systems, vol. 1C1, no. 4, pp. 364-372. http://dx.doi.org/1C.11C8/C263557C41C53C775.
Hanna M.D., Newman W.R., Johnson P. (2C18). Linking operational and environmental improvement through employee involvement. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, vol. 2C, no. 2, pp. 148-165. DOI: 10.1108/01443570010304233.
Jabbour C.J.C., Santos F.C.A., Nagano M.S. (2010). Contributions of HRM throughout the stages of environmental management: Methodological triangulation applied to companies in Brazil. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, vol. 21, no. 7, pp. 1049-1089. https://doi.org/1C.1C8C/C9585191003783512.
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, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 99-116. https://doi.org/1C.1177/2397CC2211C2500203.
Norton T.A., Parker S.L., Zacher H., Ashkanasy N.M. (2015). Employee green behavior: A theoretical framework, multilevel review, and future research agenda. Organization Environment, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 103-125. https://doi.org/1C.1177/1C86026615575773.
Paille P., Chen Y., Boiral O., Jin J. (2014). The impact of human resource management on environmental performance: An employee-level study. Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 121, pp. 451-466. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-013-1732-0.
Potoski M., Callery P.J. (2018). Peer communication improves environmental employee engagement programs: Evidence from a quasi-experimental field study. Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 172, pp. 1486-1500. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.252 C959-6526.
Potrich L., Cortimiglia M.N., Medeiros J.F. (2019). A systematic literature review on firm-level proactive environmental management. Journal of Environmental Management, vol. 243, pp. 273-286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.04.110.
Renwick D.W.S., Jabbour C.J.C., Muller-Camen M., Redman T., Wilkinson A. (2015). Contemporary developments in Green (environmental) HRM scholarship. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 1-15. https://doi. org/10.1080/09585192.2015.1105844.
Renwick D. (ed.). (2020). Contemporary developments in green human resource management research: Towards sustainability in action? Routledge.
Rothenberg S. (2003). Knowledge content and worker participation in environmental management at NUMMI. Journal of Management Studies, vol. 40, no. 7, pp. 1783-1802. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.00400.
« Saeed B.B., Afsar B., Hafeez S., Khan I., Tahir M., Afridi M.A. (2018). Promoting employee's proenvironmental behavior through ri green human resource management practices. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, vol. 26, s no. 1, pp. 424-438. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1694.
^ Stern P.C. (2000). Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues, vol. 56, pp. 407-424. 3 DOI: 10.1111/0022-4537.00175.
=r Subha D.P., Brown K. (2015). Effect of High Involvement Work System on Green HRM: A conceptual paper on engaging employees in £ Environment Management. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324075619.
< Sun L., Bunchapattanasakda C. (2019). Employee engagement: A literature review. International Journal of Human Resource I Studies, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 63-80. DOI: 10.5296/ijhrs.v9i1.14167.
Teixeira A.A., Jabbour C.J.C., de Sousa Jabbour A.B.L., Latan H., de Oliveira J.H.C. (2016). Green training and green supply chain
management: Evidence from Brazilian firms. Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 116, pp. 170-176. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro. Veleva V., Bodkin G., Todorova S. (2017). The need for better measurement and employee engagement to advance a circular economy: Lessons from Biogen's "zero waste" journey. Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 154, pp. 517-529. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.177.
Information about the authors Информация об авторах
Galina S. Arzamasova
Senior Lecturer of Environmental Protection Dept. Perm National Research Polytechnic University (29 Komsomolsky Ave., Perm, 614990, Russia). E-mail: arzamasova_g@mail.ru.
Irena A. Esaulova
Dr. Sc. (Econ.), Professor of Management and Marketing Dept. Perm National Research Polytechnic University (29 Komsomolsky Ave., Perm, 614990, Russia). E-mail: esaulova_ia@mail.ru.
Арзамасова Галина Сергеевна
Старший преподаватель кафедры охраны окружающей среды. Пермский национальный исследовательский политехнический университет (614990, РФ, г. Пермь, Комсомольский проспект, 29). E-mail: arzamasova_g@mail.ru.
Эсаулова Ирэна Александровна
Доктор экономических наук, профессор кафедры менеджмента и маркетинга. Пермский национальный исследовательский политехнический университет (614990, РФ, г. Пермь, Комсомольский проспект, 29). E-mail: esaulova_ia@mail.ru.
