Summary articles SHRL and the flexible
workforce
Article 1: Kramar, R. (2014). Beyond strategic human resource management: is sustainable human
resource management the next approach?
This paper examines the major features of SHRM, some of the meanings given to sustainability and
the relationship between sustainability and HRM. It then outlines the major characteristics of
sustainable HRM. Although there are a diversity of views about sustainable HRM, this approach has a
number of features which differentiate it from SHRM. It acknowledges organizational outcomes,
which are broader than financial outcomes. All the writings emphasize the importance of human and
social outcomes. In addition, it explicitly identifies the negative as well as the positive effects of HRM
on a variety of stakeholders; it pays further attention to the processes associated with the
implementation of HRM policies and acknowledges the tensions in reconciling competing
organizational requirements. Such an approach takes an explicit moral position about the desired
outcomes of organizational practices in the short term and the long term. Sustainable HRM can be
understood in terms of a number of complimentary frameworks.
The concept and processes of SHRM developed in the late 1970s and the 1980s as a way of managing
employees in an increasingly turbulent and fast-changing, uncertain environment. SHRM explicitly
linked people management policies and practices to the achievement of organizational outcomes
and performance, most particularly financial and market outcomes. Although some SHRM
frameworks recognized the influence of employment policies on behaviors, productivity and other
employee outcomes, the value of these outcomes was reflected in their contribution to
organizational performance, rather than any value accruing to the employees.
A more recent approach to managing people has emerged. This approach recognizes the impact
people management policies have on both human and financial outcomes. These outcomes could
include impacts on individuals or groups within an organization (human outcomes) and impacts on
groups of people and the relationships between them (social outcomes). It also recognizes ecological
or environmental outcomes and the possibility of the negative impacts on these outcomes (the
shadow side of HRM). This approach has been labeled sustainable human resource management.
There are some semantic difficulties with the definitions of the terms sustainability, SHRM and HRM,
as these are used differently in different places. Sustainability has evolved since The Brundtland
Commission of the United Nations identified three pillars of sustainable development: social,
economic and environmental. More concepts emerged, like:
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR): organizations don’t only have economic and legal
responsibility but also ethical and philanthropic.
Corporate Social Performance (CSP): emphasize on organizational impact social sphere.
The Brundtland approach has been applied to organizations and can be regarded as one way of
understanding sustainability in the world of business. This approach builds on the concept of the
three pillars by proposing that financial performance, social and ecological/environmental impacts,
need to be considered as the three dimensions of organizational performance. This approach focuses
on both the external impacts of an organization and the internal impacts. It also views sustainability
in terms of short- and longer-term impacts on a variety of stakeholders (= stakeholder approach).
Another way to understand sustainability is in terms of business operating in a neoliberal form of
capitalism, where sustainability gives precedence to one stakeholder, the owners (shareholders).
Friedman is well-known for this approach and he states that market mechanisms are the appropriate
,way to determine the allocation of scarce resources. Actions that are social responsible are only used
to further economic outcomes even more. This approach neglects the short- and long term negative
impacts on a variety of stakeholders, like employees, members of society, future generations. The
essence of this form is organizational survival and longevity.
Then we also have the three interpretations of sustainability by Ehnert (2009):
1. Responsibility-oriented: based on an open-system model, which underpins the first approach
by Brundtland. Central view: responsibility to a variety of stakeholders is undertaken for its
own sake, not because it furthers the economic interests of one stakeholder (shareholders).
Measures: employee well-being, community well-being, quality of life.
2. Efficiency and innovation-oriented: based on the Friedman approach, more about the
interrelationship between economic outcomes and sustainability outcomes. Objective is to
reduce consumption (and costs) or to increase the efficiency of resource exploitation (and
value creation) via innovation. It is a win-win, but still based on Friedman’s view.
3. Substance-oriented: seeks to maintain organizational and particularly the human resources
of an organization, so that consumption and reproduction of resources enables the
organization to survive in the future. Also based on an open-system model. Is about
acknowledging the value and quality of people and about external institution that influence
and foster the availability of the quantity and quality of people (education and training).
There are also semantic difficulties with the terms HRM and SHRM.
HRM = broad term that refers to the activities associated with the management of people who do
the work of organizations.
So it is not only about employees, because increasingly work is being done by people other than the
employees with a contract, like sub-contractors, consultants, other organizations in the production of
goods and services that need to be managed as well.
SHRM = more specific approach that refers to a series of planned human resource activities and
deployments designed to achieve an organization’s goals
This definition assumes that HRM activities need to be integrated with organizational strategic
objectives and organizational context and that effective HRM activities improve organizational
performance, reinforce each other and are aligned. The central concern of SHRM has been the
contribution of HRM to organizational performance by showing a positive relationship between HR
policies and financial organizational outcomes, which reflects the approach of Friedman.
High Performance Work Systems = bundles of practices consistent with each other, such as selective
recruitment and selections, extensive employee development and participation in decision-making.
GHRM = Green HRM, activities that enhance positive environmental outcomes
The SHRM fails to take into account a variety of stakeholder requirements, the reality of HRM
inconsistencies within organizations, the ambiguities, paradoxes and dilemmas of HRM practice and
inadequate account of external influences (like the state or trade unions, but also social structures).
One example of ambiguity is that HR managers have to reduce labor costs but also have to contribute
to the well-being of employees. One research shows that SHRM could move in three new directions:
1. Focus on the process of HRM, instead of just the content of HRM policies. An organization is
organic and change occurs iteratively, not strategic planned.
2. Adopt a broader focus, take into account a variety of stakeholder interests, which requires
skills like negotiation, persuasion and the ability to be emphatic and use dialogue.
, 3. Contribute to environmental sustainability, which requires capabilities like system thinking,
teamwork, critical thinking, reflection, collaboration and individual self-knowledge.
There are also definitional issues with the term sustainable HRM, as a number of terms has been
used, which all acknowledge human and social outcomes of the organization and the impact that HR
has on the survival and success of the organization. Some writings also acknowledge the impact of
HR on externalities, such as the environment and society, or that HR influences the extent to which
people are attracted to work for an organization or to purchase its products/services. The literature
on sustainable HRM can be categorized into three groups. All these groups see the long-term and
durable outcomes, but they see sustainability and its relation to HRM in different ways.
1. Capability Reproduction (emphasis on economic outcomes and the creation of sustainable
competitive advantage, focus on the internal impacts of HR policies): this category sees two
outcomes, economic and social/human. They see sustainable HRM as a new holistic
approach which is an extension of SHRM. There is an explicit focus on long-term and more
focus on employee outcomes.
2. Promoting Social and Environmental Health (emphasis on external outcomes, like
environment and society): many of the writers in this category have an efficiency-oriented
approach (focus on economic outcomes). They see HR as contributing to environment and
society, with the intention to achieve economic results (economic rationale), so more as
mediating factors. Other writers focus on externalities like family, community, health,
government policy. These writers are primarily concerned with negative externalities (=
something that costs the organization nothing but are costly to third parties).
3. Connections (moves beyond HR practices, looks at the interrelationships between
management practices including HRM and organizational outcomes which includes social and
environmental outcomes, also sustainable leadership): implicit in these writings is a moral
concern with organizations behaving responsible. In order for organizations to provide
environmental outcomes, they also need to manage their staff in particular ways. Sustainable
leadership is achieving a future in which humans live within their ecological and social means
without exploiting other parties. In this category there is also attention to the national
context, and to trust between employees, management en communities.
Sustainable HRM: a new approach?
Although the diverse sustainable HRM literature does not represent a coherent body of literature,
the focus of the three groups of sustainable HRM writers is on the development of human capital as
an essential outcome of HRM processes. The literature does challenge the premise that the primary
purpose of HRM is the achievement of business outcomes. In addition, a dominant concern involves
the longer-term survival of the organization and the HRM processes and outcomes that can
contribute to this survival. A focus on both social, economic and environmental outcomes recognizes
the interconnectedness of the many aspects of the organization, the people within and the external
environment. It takes into account negative externalities (that some stakeholders will lose in short or
long term as a result of HR policies). It also takes into account the influence of the institutional
context of an organization. The outcomes of sustainable HRM can be measured by evaluating
organizational, social, individual and ecological outcomes. Measures would need to evaluate
outcomes such as the quality of the employment relationship, the health and wellbeing of the
workforce, productivity (organizational); the quality of relationships at work, organization being an
employer of choice and being recognized among a range of potential sources of labor (social); and
job satisfaction, employee motivation and work–life balance (individual); use of resources, such as
energy, paper, water use, production of green products and services and costs associated with work
travel (ecological).
Until now we haven’t discussed anything about the execution or implementation of HRM policies.
, CEOs, middle and line managers play an essential role in implementation. The CEO provides
legitimacy to HRM policies, commits resources and influences within-group agreement within the
organizational hierarchy. Middle and line managers are essential for the implementation of HRM
policies and plans. These managers are critical for developing employee commitment and they need
to behave in ways that are consistent and reciprocated by employees. Other factors contributing to
effective implementation include the use of cultural and structural changes in developing effective
HRM systems, employee involvement, family–friendly policies and making HRM departments
accessible. The implementation of HRM is not a neutral process but involves political aspects, it can
therefore not be explained by rational choice.
Final definition Sustainable HRM: the pattern of planned or emerging HR strategies and practices
intended to enable the achievement of financial, social and ecological goals while simultaneously
reproducing the HR base over a long term. It seeks to minimize the negative impacts on the natural
environment and on people and communities and acknowledges the critical enabling role of CEOs,
middle and line managers, HRM professionals and employees in providing messages which are
distinctive, consistent and reflect consensus among decision-makers.
Conclusion
Sustainable HRM challenges the focus of HRM contributing to only financial outcomes, the role of HR
business partner and the role of human and social outcomes of HRM merely in terms of their
contribution to business outcomes. Within the current uncertain global economic, social and
ecological climate, the literature on sustainable HRM will continue to evolve. Sustainable HRM
represents a new approach to managing people, by identifying broader purposes for HRM, through
its recognition of the complexities of workplace dynamics and the explicit recognition of the need to
avoid negative impacts of HRM practices. It is important to acknowledge that aspects of SHRM and
PM are an integral part of sustainable HRM. Therefore, organizational outcomes such as return on
investment, market share and profit are still part of sustainable HRM, as are operational activities.
Some of the suggested measures for evaluating sustainable HRM practices are already used in
organizations. These measures include climate, well-being and work–life balance surveys, prediction
of future demand and supply of capabilities through workforce planning and the estimation of the
carbon footprint of an organization. However, the implication of a sustainable HRM approach is that
these measures are systematically adopted and form part of a broad HRM strategy.
Very vague figures are in the article. Doesn’t add much, but maybe look them up for the exam.
Article 2: De Prins, P., Van Beirendonck, L., De Vos, A., , & Segers, J. (2014). Sustainable HRM:
Bridging theory and practice through the ‘Respect Openness Continuity (ROC)’-model.
In this article, sustainable HRM is defined as: a specific form of personnel management that is
explicitly linked with the environment of the organization, which is focused on respect for the human
workforce and in which the interests of the employer, the workers and societal interests are balanced
with each other. Triple P (Planet, People and Profit) is replaced with ROC (Respect, Openness and
Continuity).
According to De Lange and Koppens (2007), sustainable HRM differs from mainstream HRM because
of the following characteristics:
1. A renewed focus on respect for the internal stakeholders in the organization (employees)
2. Environmental awareness and outside-in perspective on HRM (openness)
3. A long-term approach, both with regard to economic and societal sustainability terms and
also individual employability (continuity).
SHRM was focused on the link between HRM and financial performance, the fit between HRM and
strategy and HRM and sustainable competitive advantage (resource-based view). It was focused on
