Management Review Quarterly

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-023-00360-6

Sustainable HRM and well‑being: systematic review

and future research agenda

Faisal Qamar1 · Gul Afshan1 · Salman Anwar Rana1

Received: 16 November 2022 / Accepted: 21 June 2023

© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023

Abstract
This paper attempts to undertake a systematic literature review to identify ways and
means by which sustainable human resource management (HRM) and well-being
are linked for better individual and organizational outcomes. Its primary focus is
to study whether sustainable HRM predicts well-being at work? If yes, how and
when this prediction takes place? Systematic computerized search and review were
conducted for articles published until December 2022. A total of 134 research arti-
cles were finally selected. It was found that sustainable HRM predicts well-being
at work. However, our findings suggest that the area is largely underexplored and
empirical work is too rare. Although few moderators and mediators are examined,
research is required to propose and test more comprehensive models with more
robust research designs and sophisticated theoretical links.

Keywords Psychological health · Sustainable HRM · Well-being

1 Introduction

Volatile labor markets and swiftly changing global business perspectives are con-
tinuously evolving the role of human resource (HR) managers (Vyas 2022). Work
patterns are markedly transforming with health, wellbeing, a ‘people-first’ focus and
sustainability as few of the high-priority management areas (Kane 2022). Further-
more, for sustainable progress in society, the sustainability assertion must exist in
the corporate realm (Roca-Puig 2019; ElAlfy et al. 2020; Yong et al. 2020).

* Faisal Qamar
[email protected]
Gul Afshan
[email protected]
Salman Anwar Rana
[email protected]
1
Department of Business Administration, Sukkur IBA University, Sukkur, Pakistan

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
 F. Qamar et al.

There is a rising academic interest in research focusing sustainability and sus-

tainable development (Secundo et al. 2020; Sharpley 2020). Although, many stud-
ies have recently been undertaken (Pizzi et al. 2020) and sustainability is gradually
becoming a part of numerous scientific fields, there are still differences in concep-
tual terminology (Vaio et al. 2020; Ranjbari et al. 2021). Moreover, the term is only
employed theoretically for political goals or as a "fad" facts that hide the genuine
meaning of sustainability (Kelman 2021).
Furthermore, over the last three decades, human resources have differentiated
themselves for their importance to business strategies (Macke and Genari 2019) and
for their potential to leverage business performance via cost and revenue mecha-
nisms and economic valuation to serve the interests of business owners and share-
holders (Silva et al. 2019; Lăzăroiu et al. 2020). Discussions on sustainable human
resource management began in the late 1990s in Germany, Switzerland, and Aus-
tralia. The studies by Gollan (2000), Jithendran and Baum (2000), Müller-Christ and
Remer (1999) and Zaugg et al. (2001) were crucial in this regard. Based on previ-
ous studies on corporate sustainability, human relations, and environmental manage-
ment, those authors emphasized the importance of sustainability in the domain of
human resource management (Chams and García-Blandón 2019; Macke and Genari
2019; Stahl et al. 2020).
Various disciplines and scientific research areas are now developing research on
how sustainability is applied to human resource management. The stakeholder hori-
zon of HR is broadening; a recently published special issue by Cooke et al. (2021)
stresses the need to consider the ‘whole-systems ecological view’ of HRM for
ensuring organizational sustainability by effectively navigating business disruptions
and crises. ‘Common Good HRM view’ of sustainable HRM proposed by Aust et al.
(2020) emphasizes a timely reengineering of HRM function for its visible contribu-
tion to the broader context, i.e., for managing and addressing “grand sustainability
challenges” of recent times. The recent post-pandemic symposium ‘Transforming
our Future’ highlights that it is time to chalk out concrete plans for transforming
workplaces to ensure and improve employee health, well-being, and livelihood
(Lansbury 2021).
It is noted that the connection between sustainable human resource manage-
ment and well-being is novel and seems developing as an important research area
that needs to be investigated. The link between sustainable human resource man-
agement and employee well-being seems important on the basis of two asser-
tions: first, human resource management plays a role in promoting organizational
well-being through organizational sustainability (Pellegrini et al. 2018; Macke and
Genari 2019) and second, the sustainability of human resource management pro-
cesses contributes to employee well-being (Cooper et al. 2019; Amrutha and Geetha
2020). Existing research in this area has a specific objective and is based on various
assumptions about the contribution of sustainable HRM to well-being (Cooper et al.
2019; Aust et al. 2020).
Through a rigorous literature analysis, this review assesses the current status of
sustainable human resource management and its important aspects, developments,
and research needs. It then investigates the assumptions underpinning the varied
applications of sustainable human resource management in organizational research.

13
Sustainable HRM and well‑being: systematic review and future…

A systematic review of the literature is an efficient approach to synthesize a large

amount of data and determine the main features of a certain subject. This type of
examination also comprises a scientific investigation, which includes a comprehen-
sive search of potentially relevant articles as well as the application of defined and
repeatable selection criteria (Okoli and Schabram 2010; Xiao and Watson 2019). As
a result, it makes it easier to gather, evaluate, and synthesize data from various stud-
ies (Cook et al. 1997) as well as identification of research gaps (Kitchenham 2004)
(Table 4).

1.1 Why sustainable HRM and well‑being?

We are still in the early phases of research on sustainable human resource manage-
ment, if not the nascent stage. So far, exploratory work on sustainable HRM has
strived to characterize the sustainability phenomenon and its relevance to HRM. The
very first contributions to this field began to surface in Germany (e.g. Muller-Christ
and Remer 1999), Switzerland (e.g. Zaugg et al. 2001), and Australia (e.g. Gollan
2000) by the end of the 1990s. The primary contributions of the initial book chap-
ters, studies, and journal articles were to emphasize the importance of sustainability
for HRM, to propose early theories on how sustainability may be related to HRM,
and to term this field of research as "Sustainable HRM."
The earliest definitions of sustainable HRM were given in those initial texts, for
instance, Zaugg et al. (2001) defined sustainable HRM as long-term socially and
economically efficient recruitment, development, retention, and dis-employment
of personnel (p. II). Sustainable HRM is described by Müller-Christ and Remer
(1999) as what companies themselves must do in their surroundings to have access
to highly qualified individuals in the future (p. 76; translated from German by the
authors). Meanwhile, according to Gollan (2000) human resources sustainabil-
ity refers to an organization’s ability to produce value and as a result, to regener-
ate value and replenish wealth via implementation of human resource policies and
procedures. We may see distinct presumptions about the objectives of sustainable
HRM and varying conceptions of sustainability when we examine these numerous
definitions of sustainable HRM. At that time, the majority of definitions of sustain-
able HRM were based on a long-term perspective on organizational and corporate
viability, and future orientation is, in fact, one of the crucial connections between
sustainability and (strategic) HRM (see Aust et al. 2020 and Kramar 2014).
Scholars who contributed in earlier years investigated the relationship between
sustainability and HRM in greater depth in a second "wave" of interdisciplinary
research. Others have added to the discussion by linking the notion of sustainability
to other HR issues, such as a sustainable HR strategy for mitigating the unintended
impacts (sometimes known as "externalities") of downsizing projects (Kramar 2014;
Wikhamn 2019; Aust et al. 2020); the significance of human resource sustainabil-
ity (Ehnert et al. 2014; Poon and Law 2020; Kainzbauer et al. 2021); the possibil-
ity of sustainability as a new paradigm for HRM and talent management (Gardas
et al. 2019); a stakeholder theory approach to sustainable HRM (Guerci et al. 2014;
Westerman et al. 2020; Ribeiro and Gavronski 2021) and a first edited volume on

13
 F. Qamar et al.

sustainability and HRM (Clarke 2011; Ehnert et al. 2014). This second wave of
groundbreaking research is distinguished by a significant number of single-authored
contributions that work independently of one another, as well as a consolidation of
earlier ideas. The research fields of CSR, strategic HRM, human factors (ergonom-
ics), and sustainable work systems largely influenced these studies.
We are presently in the "third wave" of sustainable human resource manage-
ment literature. Experts on sustainable human resource management are beginning
to interact and work in multidisciplinary teams, and the emphasis is changing from
interest in sustainable human resource management systems to the societal discus-
sion of sustainability. A greater knowledge of human resource management (HRM)
functions is also evolving. Human resource management is critical in ensuring that
organizations are not only economically and socially responsible, but also ecologi-
cally sustainable (e.g. Deshwal 2015; Ehnert et al. 2014 and Macke and Genari
2019). However, we see that most writers fail to fully address the sustainability fea-
tures. Instead, competing concepts emerge, such as ’Green HRM,’ which focuses
on environmental sustainability, while accepting the dominance of economic perfor-
mance maximization (e.g. Al-Minhas et al. 2020; Malik et al. 2021 and Shah et al.
2021) and ’Socially Responsible HRM,’ which focuses on social sustainability and
corporate social responsibility (e.g. Omidi and Dal Zotto 2022 and Sobhani et al.
2021). This trend of focusing on two elements of sustainability rather than three or
four means that we are entering an era where opposing perspectives on how to uti-
lize sustainability constructively for HRM and various techniques for its application
to practice emerge (which might be different).
Because sustainable HRM is in its early stages of development and is generally
viewed as a “greater good” approach (Aust et al. 2020), there is a significant gap
in identifying its future research potential. Especially in terms of empirical work
related to the positive impact of sustainable HRM on employee health and well-
being. Based on the papers focusing conceptual understanding, dimensions, and
operationalization of the concept (for example, Anlesinya and Susomrith 2020;
Randev and Jha 2019; Stankevičiūtė and Savanevičienė 2018), sustainable HRM
has significant potential for improving well-being and reducing negative behaviors
at work, like stress and turnover in the organizational context. Still, for identify-
ing what has been done so far in our understanding of the nexus between sustain-
able HRM and well-being and what should be the focus of future research, there
seems a viable gap for conducting a systematic literature review. Research directions
for associations between sustainable HRM and well-being are well-highlighted in
the literature (see Lange 2016; Stankevičiūtė and Savanevičienė 2018). Similarly,
empirical studies for establishing the said relationship (for example, Sorribes et al.
2021) provide sufficient ground to conduct a systematic literature review by synthe-
sizing the research carried out till today for suggesting directions and focus of future
research.
Given all these arguments, the present paper attempts to conduct a review of
those studies that investigate the relationship between sustainable HRM and well-
being at work. To fill the existing gap for linking sustainable human resource man-
agement and well-being, the present study attempts to answer the following research
questions:

13
Sustainable HRM and well‑being: systematic review and future…

a. Which theory can better explain the relationship between sustainable human
resource management and well-being?
b. In which context has the relationship between sustainable human resource man-
agement and well-being been majorly studied? Past, present, and the future?
c. Which characteristics (enablers, mediators, moderators, and outcomes) have been
used to establish the relationship between sustainable human resource manage-
ment and well-being, and what are the future possibilities?
d. What are the past methodological trends and potential future opportunities from
a research perspective?

2 Methodology and procedure

To find answers to the above-mentioned research questions, a systematic literature

review was carried out by the authors. According to Khan et al. (2003) the system-
atic review should follow a 5-step process: formulating questions for review, identi-
fying relevant research work, examining the quality of published studies, summariz-
ing the evidence and interpreting findings. A systematic review is a thorough and
rigorous research project exploring specific question(s) and reaching reasonably log-
ical conclusions about what is known and what still needs to be investigated (Denyer
and Tranfield 2009). Please see Fig. 1 for the articles’ selection process.
To ensure rigor and systematic synthesis in the present study, six publisher
databases were searched for related published research. These include ScienceDi-
rect, Emerald Publishing, JSTOR, Wiley Online Library, SpringerLink and Tay-
lor and Francis. De-la-Calle-Durán and Rodríguez-Sánchez (2021) reported that

Fig. 1  Step-wise process and protocol for selection of articles and reporting

13
 F. Qamar et al.

a search should be comprehensive enough to ensure the avoidance of selection

bias. Moreover, it should include as many sources as possible. The above pub-
lishing sources are prominent for searching the published quality work related
to business and management domain. We limited our search to the broad cate-
gories of business, management, and organization-related publications. For the
present study, different pairs of search terms were used. According to De-la-
Calle-Durán and Rodríguez-Sánchez (2021), the keyword search criteria reduces
the researchers’ subjectivity for data collection. Search terms for present study
were “[Sustainable HRM, Employee Wellbeing], [Sustainable HRM, Employee
Well-being], [Sustainable HRM, Employee Well being], [Sustainable Human
Resource Management, Employee Wellbeing], [Sustainable Human Resource
Management, Employee Well-being], [Sustainable Human Resource Manage-
ment, Employee Well being], [Sustainable HR Practices, Employee Wellbeing],
[Sustainable HR Practices, Employee Well-being], [Sustainable HR Practices,
Employee Well being], [Sustainable HRM, Organizational Wellbeing], [Sustain-
able HRM, Organizational Well-being], [Sustainable HRM, Organizational Well
being], [Sustainable Human Resource Management, Organizational Wellbeing],
[Sustainable Human Resource Management, Organizational Well-being], [Sus-
tainable Human Resource Management, Organizational Well being], [Sustainable
HR Practices, Organizational Wellbeing], [Sustainable HR Practices, Organiza-
tional Well-being], and [Sustainable HR Practices, Organizational Well being]”.
We found the following results (No. of items including, books, articles,
book chapters, book reviews, etc.) in each database: Wiley Online Library = 72,
JSTOR = 189, SpringerLink = 283, ScienceDirect = 73, Emerald = 295, Taylor
and Francis = 63, making a total of 973. These initially searched 973 items were
imported to ‘MAXQDA Analytics Pro. 2020’ for their further analysis. Moving for-
ward, books, book chapters, book reviews, conference papers, editorial papers and
case studies were excluded because the search criteria set by the authors comprised
only research papers. Five duplicate items were found which were also removed.
We used MAXQDA software to filter the articles having direct or indirect links with
sustainable HRM and well-being i.e., where the nexus was focused through explora-
tory approach, contextual discussion or empirical investigation. Only those articles
were included for the next phase which fulfilled the below criteria:

a. A publication of peer-reviewed academic journals.

b. Published up to December 2022 (starting period may be any year).
c. Investigation of sustainable HRM and well-being as antecedent and outcome
variables, or studies following the exploratory or systematic literature review or
other approaches to conduct the research.
d. The language of publication should be English.

This software-assisted search filtered 134 articles for the next stage, which
were downloaded from the web for their full detailed reading.
This study has followed the theory, context, characteristics, and method
(TCCM) model to report the findings. This research has performed a thematic

13
Sustainable HRM and well‑being: systematic review and future…

analysis to answer all the potential questions of the area under study. After going
through the detailed literature on sustainable HRM and well-being, we could
find that various terms have been used to refer to sustainability-related aspects of
organizational practices from an HRM perspective. We have used these terms to
perform the TCCM analysis. The common terms that emerged in the literature for
such organizational actions are:

• Socially responsible actions,

• Environmental-friendly practices,
• Environmental management and protection,
• Green HRM practices,
• Eco-friendly actions,
• Sustainable HRM practices and
• Socially responsible HRM.

As well-being may exist in many forms within an organization, this study has
considered it in its two kinds for this analysis:

• Employee well-being
• Organizational well-being

Moreover, we have also used our data to develop a publication trend analysis
(Fig. 2) which shows that from research perspective, the area has shown consider-
able development during the last decade. The trend analysis suggests that all the
publications are coming from recent years. This identifies that the area has potential
for organizations, and it requires to be further explored at its best.

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

Fig. 2  Yearly trend of publications

13
 F. Qamar et al.

2.1 Defining Sustainable HRM and well‑being

As discussed above, based on the existing literature, defining sustainable HRM is

not easy. Sustainable development is among the top priorities of the United Nations
(UN) (Kowalski and Loretto 2017) and to achieve sustainable development within
organizations, HRM as a profession and function has a critical role in evolving into
sustainable HRM (Piwowar-Sulej 2021a, b). Taking the lead from the triple P per-
spective (people, planet, profits) (Elkington 1999) and the UN’s focus on sustainabil-
ity, sustainable HRM is a new face of HRM (Nuis et al. 2021). Sustainable HRM, as
a variant of the people management approach, is an emerging field having immense
potential to make better organizational and societal outcomes (Stankevičiūtė and
Savanevičienė 2018). Further to this, present study follows the below mentioned
definition of sustainable HRM to conduct the systematic literature review.
Sustainable HRM is a broader HR lens and a holistic approach that encompasses
organizational human and social capital and considers the influence of HR poli-
cies and practices on community/society, environment, and economy (Chillakuri and
Vanka 2020). Sustainable HRM fosters such organizational practices which are
beyond profit maximization (Kramar 2014; Lansbury 2021), and is future-oriented
in terms of sustaining human, social and environmental resources, thus, ensuring
the long-term survival of the organizational operations (Nuis et al. 2021).
Moreover, for well-being, various authors have given different definitions.
Because of the broad nature of the concept, some authors have conceptualized well-
being from perspectives of both physical and psychological health (Kelloway and
Barling 1991; Arnold 2017) or mental well-being (Witte et al. 2016). Few other dis-
tinctions include hedonic and eudemonic well-being (Kowalski and Loretto 2017).
Whereas, others define it as context-free/general and context-specific/domain-spe-
cific well-being (for example, work-related) (Witte et al. 2016; Arnold 2017). The
current study is following well-being in its under-defined form:
One significant characteristic that all definitions of well-being have is that it
includes both positive and negative qualities, such as job satisfaction and happiness,
as well as the absence of unfavorable events such as disease (Zheng et al. 2015). It
addresses an individual’s physical, material, social, emotional (happiness), activity-
related and development-related aspects of life. A more comprehensive definition,
also cited at the Helsinki conference, is flourishing employees (experience better
well-being) who reach their full potential for their own benefit and for the benefit of
their organization (Schulte and Vainio 2010).

3 Findings

3.1 Which theory can better explain the relationship between sustainable

human resource management and well‑being?

3.1.1 Stakeholder theory

According to Wright and Steinbach (2022), stakeholder theory (SHT) is one of the
most popular theories of modern times and is relevant to the sustainability of HR

13
Sustainable HRM and well‑being: systematic review and future…

practices. It appeared in 21 studies considered in our sample. Study of Chillakuri

and Vanka (2020) highlight SHT’s role in deriving employee well-being through
sustainable HRM. SHT puts internal and external stakeholders at the center of busi-
ness activities and assumes that organizations must effectively manage and take care
of various stakeholders. Furthermore, Greenwood and Anderson (2009) describe in
detail how an employee is a stakeholder in business. Studies by Kundu and Gahl-
awat (2015) and del-Castillo-Feito et al. (2022) argued that in today’s diversified
and complex markets, stakeholder theory assumes that considering multiple-stake-
holder interests is a business imperative. Thus, stakeholder theory has high implica-
tions for sustainable human resource practices from perspective of reducing harm
(Mariappanadar 2016) and ensuring well-being of an employee and organization by
addressing the needs of various internal and external business audiences.

3.1.2 Institutional theory

Kassen (2022) reported that institutional theory (IT) is among the most widely
accepted conceptual approaches of recent times. According to the findings of del-
Castillo-Feito et al. (2022) IT can help overcome the challenges of organizational
legitimacy. Use of IT has appeared in 10 studies in the selected articles for our
review. It assumes that business organizations can ensure their survival by gain-
ing legitimacy when they align their activities and actions with the norms, values,
and beliefs prevailing in the social system they operate (Díez-Martín et al. 2021).
Moreover, it can potentially contribute to general well-being as well. A study by
Diaz-Carrion et al. (2021) argues that IT can explain the context-sensitivity of HR
practices leading to organizational success. The context would push HR policies and
practices to align with the social system, ultimately ensuring organizational legiti-
macy and sustainability. Therefore, IT can be applied as an overarching theoreti-
cal framework to gain legitimacy and a competitive edge through sustainable HR
practices.

3.1.3 Social exchange theory

From perspective of sustainable HR practices, Jeronimo et al. (2020) and Mari-

appanadar (2020) reported that in person-organization exchange process, the
social exchange theory (SET) is a useful mechanism to understand the strength
of expected employee response i.e., desirable and undesirable, which may help to
enhance employee engagement. SET has appeared in 21 studies in our review and
it assumes that when employees benefit from the employers or when they perceive
their interests being taken care of, they are expected to be more engaged because
there is a higher likelihood of paying back to their employers in return. According to
Mowbray et al. (2021), SET has invaluable potential to trigger employee motivation
to reciprocate the employers’ positive and supportive actions resulting in positive
outcomes. Based on these arguments, SET may be applied as a strong theoretical

13
 F. Qamar et al.

underpinning for achieving sustainable workplaces where positive employee behav-

iors may be fostered through the exchange ideology.

3.1.4 Social identity theory

Management studies have widely used social identity theory (SIT) for understanding
individual employee identities within broader socio-organizational settings (Rubel
et al. 2021). The use of SIT has appeared in 11 studies under consideration in the
present review. Sancho et al. (2018) reported that SIT could help in explaining an
employee’s psychological or emotional bonding with the employer. This is possi-
ble because individuals are associated with the organizations’ socially responsible
HR practices. It may lead organizational members to gain higher self-esteem and
enhanced organizational commitment and it could also contribute to their well-
being. According to Pham and Paillé (2020) positive organizational aspects, i.e.,
sustainable or environmental-friendly practices can affect employees’ identities and
self-concept because employees feel proud to be associated with such organizations
and they want to be identified with them. After all, it enhances their self-esteem as
responsible citizens. This process of strengthening the self-concept and enhancing
self-esteem is deep-rooted in the fundamental assumptions of social identity theory
(Pham and Paillé 2020). This way, SIT can be applied in the contexts of sustainable
HR practices and environmental-friendly actions associating individual and organi-
zational identities.

3.1.5 AMO theory

For a few decades, the ability, motivation, and opportunity (AMO) theory has
attracted wider applications for linking human resource management and perfor-
mance (Brunetto et al. 2022). This theory has been used 14 times in our selected
articles. According to Mujtaba and Mubarik (2021), AMO theory is important for
deriving organizational sustainability by fostering eco-friendly practices in employ-
ees within and outside the organizations. Organizations can strengthen employee
abilities, motivate them and give them possible opportunities to involve in sustaina-
ble practices. This way, a joint effort on the part of employees and organizations can
achieve sustainable solutions, i.e., decent workplaces, a healthy society, etc. (Muj-
taba and Mubarik 2021). The core idea ingrained in the basic AMO assumption is
that positive and desirable employee behaviors are a function of HR practices which
could result in sustainable trade-offs (Brunetto et al. 2022). Given this, AMO theory
may be applied for the benefit of both organizations and employees to achieve sus-
tainable global objectives.

3.1.6 Organizational support theory

According to Mariappanadar (2020) organizational support theory (OST) may be

applied to understand how innovative employee behaviors are positively influenced
by perceived organizational support, especially during undesirable situations, i.e.,

13
Sustainable HRM and well‑being: systematic review and future…

risk of health harm. This way, OST can offer an extension of sustainable HRM lit-
erature focusing well-being. OST appeared in 5 studies in our sample. Aboramadan
et al. (2021) argued that OST could perform a significant role in achieving sustain-
able and eco-friendly objectives. It may be helpful to develop positive employee
perceptions when the organization values, appreciates and acknowledges sustainable
actions or environmental contributions on the part of employees. Given this, OST
has potential to be used as a theoretical scaffolding in the context of sustainable HR
practices.

3.1.7 Resource‑based view theory

From a strategic management perspective, the resource-based view (RBV) has

gained significant importance over the years (Greve 2021). Appearing in 6 of the
sampled studies in our review, RBV may offer valuable conceptual insights to under-
standing how socially responsible HRM practices can contribute to solving prevail-
ing long-term sustainability challenges (Lechuga Sancho et al. 2018). Hameed et al.
(2021) argued that from RBV lens, green transformational leadership could prove a
valuable contextual resource to foster eco-friendly follower behaviors. Such lead-
ership can transform ordinary followers into sustainable and competitive resources
contributing to achieve organizational goals related to environmental protection and
sustainability. Based on the literature, we may infer that RBV theory attaches high
importance to the resources for achieving sustainable workplaces and a motivated
workforce.

3.1.8 Indicators for theory selection criteria

We have undertaken a review of different theories which have been used by various
authors to study the relationship of Sustainable HRM with well-being and the over-
all sustainability. This study thrashed out several theories and contributed to a better
understanding of the existing link between sustainable HRM and well-being. This study
further established seven arguments based on the repeatedly used theories (in our sam-
ple) that will help future studies to select a theory for better understanding the relation-
ship for multiple (potential) avenues related to sustainable HRM and well-being nexus.
This allows us to identify the nature of theories that explain this relationship. For exam-
ple, stakeholder theory explains how internal and external stakeholder well-being can
be driven through sustainable HRM. Whereas, institutional theory explains the rela-
tionship between sustainable HRM and well-being by considering norms, values, and
beliefs prevailing in a social system. Furthermore, the social identity theory explains
how an employee’s association is shaped by organization’s socially responsible HR
practices, and how such identity could enhance an employee’s self-esteem and commit-
ment, resulting in higher employee well-being. On the other hand, organizational sup-
port theory helps in understanding how sustainable HRM practices improve employee
confidence related to organizational support in work processes. This confidence allows
them to work in a risk-free environment and enhances their well-being. Social exchange
theory allows us to understand how exchange ideology builds a sustainable workplace
that benefits both an employee and the organization for enhancing overall well-being.

13
 F. Qamar et al.

Whereas, ability, motivation, and opportunity theory plays another important role in
bridging the gap between sustainable HRM and well-being by enabling eco-friendly
practices at work. These practices induce the overall sustainability of the organization
by exercising well-being practices. The resource-based view theory provides a different
perspective to link sustainable HRM and well-being by identifying the employee as a
valuable resource for an organization. According to the RBV, employee development
occurs because of leadership efforts which may enhance well-being of an employee
and overall organization. Thus, based on the extant literature linking sustainable HRM
practices and positive outcomes, including well-being, it is concluded that the above-
mentioned theories can be used in different circumstances to fill the existing literature
gap. We believe that the future studies can benefit from contributions of present study
with respect to adaptation of these theories related to their area of interest i.e. while
studying various aspects of sustainable HRM and well-being nexus. Furthermore, the
detailed list of the theories used in the literature is provided in Table 1.

3.2 In which context has the relationship between sustainable human

resource management and well‑being been majorly studied? Past, present,
and the future?

Our detailed review suggests that European and Asian countries have been the major
focus of attention for sustainable HRM and well-being-related studies. Very few stud-
ies are appearing from developed economies like USA and UK. This may be due to
the reason that the developed economies are already taking reasonable measures to
address sustainability-related issues (please see WHO 2021). Many studies appeared
from developing countries like India, Brazil, Malaysia, and Pakistan. The African
region seems an ignored area, whereas, a few studies also appeared from under-devel-
oped economies like Palestine and Iran. A detailed list of geographical contexts (where
these studies have been conducted) is given in Table 2 and Fig. 3. Based on the above,
the future work on sustainable HRM may focus underprivileged African countries
and other nations of the under-developed world because sustainability and well-being-
related issues are a major concern for such economies.

3.3 Which characteristics (enablers, mediators, moderators, and outcomes) have

been used to establish the relationship between sustainable human resource
management and well‑being, and what are the future possibilities?

We looked at each thematic item in detail to see how different frameworks were
utilized to lead sustainable HRM practices toward well-being. Overall, the empiri-
cal research revealed useful information about how sustainable HR concepts have
been implemented in various human resource management areas and what linkages
and challenges have been investigated over the years. Two decades of research on
sustainable HRM has yielded valuable insights into sustainable HRM’s potential
role towards addressing well-being-related issues which needs further investigation.
In the meantime, new study locations, research methodologies, sampling methods,

13
 Table 1  Theories Used in the Literature
Theory Study Count

theory of sustainable (De Prins et al. 2020) 1

HRM
Stakeholder Theory (del-Castillo-Feito et al. 2022); (Kundu and Gahlawat 2015); (Anlesinya and Amponsah-Tawiah 2020); (Piwowar-Sulej 21
2021a); (Úbeda-García et al. 2021); (Raub and Martin-Rios 2019); (Lechuga Sancho et al. 2018); (Macini et al. 2020);
(Mariappanadar 2012a); (Podgorodnichenko et al. 2020a); (Van Buren III 2020); (Yong et al. 2020); (Stankevičiūtė and
Savanevičienė, 2019); (Bondarouk and Brewster 2016); (Onkila and Sarna 2021); (Chaudhary 2020); (Diaz-Carrion et al.
2018); (Beer et al. 2015); (Lombardi et al. 2020); (Podgorodnichenko et al. 2020b); (Mariappanadar et al. 2021)
Theory of Common Good HRM (Aust et al. 2020); (del-Castillo-Feito et al. 2022)
Institutional theory (del-Castillo-Feito et al. 2022); (Chillakuri and Vanka 2020); (Diaz-Carrion et al. 2021); (Mariappanadar and Kramar 2014); 10
(Cabral and Dhar 2021); (Christina et al. 2017); (Onkila and Sarna 2021); (Diaz-Carrion et al. 2018); (Mariappanadar et al.
2021)
Social exchange theory (Kundu and Gahlawat 2015); (Almarzooqi et al. 2019); (Gould-Williams 2003); (App and Büttgen 2016); (Mariappanadar 21
2020); (Jeronimo et al. 2020); (Singh et al. 2019); (Mowbray et al. 2021); (Lechuga Sancho et al. 2018); (Mariappanadar
and Kramar 2014); (Pradhan et al. 2020); (Rincon-Roldan and Lopez-Cabrales 2021b); (Aboramadan et al. 2021); (Ahmad
and Umrani 2019); (Al Kerdawy 2019); (Yang et al. 2019); (Chaudhary 2020); (Dixon-Fowler et al. 2020); (Hu and Jiang
2018); (Cooke et al. 2020); (Barrena-Martínez et al. 2019)
Sustainable HRM and well‑being: systematic review and future…

Theories of Motivation (Gould-Williams 2003) 1

Barney’s Economic Theory (Gould-Williams 2003) 1
Organisational justice theory (Anlesinya and Amponsah-Tawiah 2020) 1
HRM Theory (Anlesinya and Susomrith 2020); (Macini et al. 2020) 2
Resource Based theory (Au and Ahmed 2014); (Ardichvili 2012); (Adjei-Bamfo et al. 2020) 3
Social Identity Theory (Donald et al. 2020); (App and Büttgen 2016); (Donald et al. 2020); (Lechuga Sancho et al. 2018); (Pham and Paillé, 11
2020); (Rubel et al. 2021); (Paulet et al. 2021); (Onkila and Sarna 2021); (Chaudhary 2020); (Dixon-Fowler et al. 2020);
(Podgorodnichenko et al. 2020b)
AMO Theory (Anlesinya and Susomrith 2020); (Úbeda-García et al. 2021); (Jeronimo et al. 2020); (Hooi et al. 2021); (Mujtaba and 14
Mubarik 2021); (Mowbray et al. 2021); (Hameed et al. 2021); (Rincon-Roldan and Lopez-Cabrales 2021a); (Maheshwari
et al. 2020); (Yong et al. 2020); (Cabral and Dhar 2021); (Paulet et al. 2021); (Podgorodnichenko et al. 2020b); (Shoaib
et al. 2021)

13
 Table 1  (continued)
Theory Study Count

13
Organizational Support Theory (App and Büttgen 2016); (Chillakuri and Vanka 2020); (Mariappanadar 2020); (Rincon-Roldan and Lopez-Cabrales 2021a); 5
(Aboramadan et al. 2021)
Negative externalities (Chillakuri and Vanka 2020); (Stankevičiūtė and Savanevičienė, 2019) 3
Theory
Theory of Ecosystems (Donald et al. 2020) 1
Push–pull theory (Donald et al. 2020) 1
Career Theory (Donald et al. 2020) 1
Human capital theory (Donald et al. 2020); (Beer et al. 2015) 2
Signaling Theory (Donald et al. 2020); (Muisyo et al. 2021); (Samimi and Sydow 2021); (Lopez-Cabrales and Valle-Cabrera 2020) 4
Extant Strategy Theory (Donald et al. 2020) 1
Working Identity Theory (Donald et al. 2020) 1
Theory of CSR (Santana and Lopez-Cabrales 2019); (Tworzydło et al. 2021) 2
theory of harm of work (Mariappanadar 2020) 1
synthesis effect theory (Mariappanadar 2020); (Mariappanadar and Kramar 2014) 2
Systems Theory (Mariappanadar 2020); (Ardichvili 2012) 2
Theory of Configurational Per- (Mariappanadar 2020) 1
spective
POS theory (Mariappanadar 2020) 1
slack resources theory (Úbeda-García et al. 2021) 1
Instrumental Theory (Úbeda-García et al. 2021) 1
Relevant Theory (Úbeda-García et al. 2021) 1
Role congruity theory of prejudice (Jeronimo et al. 2020) 1
HRD Theory (Ardichvili 2012) 1
Universal theory of justice (Ardichvili 2012) 1
Human Capital Theory (Mujtaba and Mubarik 2021); (Pluta and Rudawska 2016); (Bondarouk and Brewster 2016) 3
F. Qamar et al.
 Table 1  (continued)
Theory Study Count

RBV Theory (Mujtaba and Mubarik 2021); (Lechuga Sancho et al. 2018); (Hameed et al. 2021); (Sathasivam et al. 2021); (Ghouri et al. 6
2020); (Podgorodnichenko et al. 2020b)
DC Theory (Mujtaba and Mubarik 2021) 1
Theory of Decent Work (Kashyap and Arora 2020) 1
WFE Theory (Kashyap and Arora 2020) 1
Enrichment Theory (Kashyap and Arora 2020) 1
Psychology of Work Theory (Kashyap and Arora 2020) 1
Stakeholder Salience Theory (Macini et al. 2020); (Paulet et al. 2021) 2
Psychological Contract Theory (Mariappanadar and Kramar 2014); (Maheshwari et al. 2020) 2
Relative Deprivation Theory (Mariappanadar 2012a) 1
Social Cognitive theory (Pradhan et al. 2020); (Luu 2021b) 2
Self-Efficacy Theory (Pradhan et al. 2020) 1
Theory of Planned Behavior (Pradhan et al. 2020) 1
Organizational Identification (Pradhan et al. 2020) 1
Sustainable HRM and well‑being: systematic review and future…

Theory
Strategic HRM Theory (Van Buren III 2020) 1
global talent management theory (Vecchi et al. 2021) 1
Comprehensive Marketing Theory (Freitas et al. 2021) 1
Fuzzy Set Theory (Parng et al. 2021) 1
Theory of Reciprocity (Rincon-Roldan and Lopez-Cabrales 2021a); (Rincon-Roldan and Lopez-Cabrales 2021b) 2
Conservation of Resources (Luu 2021b); (Luu 2021a); (Mariappanadar 2014); (Podgorodnichenko et al. 2021) 3
Relative Deprivation Theory (Mariappanadar 2013); (Mariappanadar 2012a) 2
supply-value fit theory (Ahmad and Umrani 2019) 1
Resource Dependency Theory (Cabral and Dhar 2021) 1
Complementarity Theory (Cabral and Dhar 2021) 1

13
 Table 1  (continued)
Theory Study Count

13
NRBV Theory (Ghouri et al. 2020) 1
Contingency theory (Kramar 2014); (Samimi and Sydow 2021) 2
Multiple identity theory (Bush 2020) 1
Role Theory (Bush 2020); (Stankevičiūtė and Savanevičienė, 2019) 2
Paradox Theory (Stankevičiūtė and Savanevičienė, 2019); (Podgorodnichenko et al. 2020b) 2
Neo-Institutional Theory (Christina et al. 2017); (Ren and Jackson 2020) 2
General Systems Theory (Bondarouk and Brewster 2016) 1
Organizational Culture Theory (Onkila and Sarna 2021) 1
Organizational Identification (Onkila and Sarna 2021) 1
Theory
Issue life-cycle theory (Onkila and Sarna 2021) 1
Human Agency Theory (Onkila and Sarna 2021) 1
Moral Identity Theory (Hu and Jiang 2018) 1
Person Organization Fit Theory (Muisyo et al. 2021) 1
Equity Theory (Lee 2019) 1
Agency Theory (Beer et al. 2015); (Mariappanadar 2014) 2
Meta Theory (Piwowar-Sulej 2021b) 1
Boundaryless Career Theory (Cooke et al. 2020) 1
Social Cost Theory (Mariappanadar 2014) 1
Micro-economic Theory (Mariappanadar 2014) 1
Cognitive Appraisal Theory (Mariappanadar 2014) 1
Control Theory (Mariappanadar 2014) 1
Cognitive Theory (Poon and Law 2020) 1
Practice Theory (Poon and Law 2020) 1
Disclosure Theory (Mariappanadar et al. 2021) 1
F. Qamar et al.
 Table 1  (continued)
Theory Study Count

Dynamic Equilibrium Theory (Mariappanadar et al. 2021) 1

Social Legitimacy Theory (Mariappanadar et al. 2021) 1
Institutional Entrepreneurship (Ren and Jackson 2020) 1
Theory
Compensation Theory (Van Dam et al. 2017) 1
Socio-emotional Sensitivity (Van Dam et al. 2017) 1
Theory
Self-Determination Theory (Van Dam et al. 2017) 1
Life-span Theory (Van Dam et al. 2017) 1
Absorptive Capacity Theory (O’Donohue and Torugsa 2016) 1
Sustainable HRM and well‑being: systematic review and future…

13
 Table 2  Geographical Context
Country Reference Count

13
Europe (Diaz-Carrion et al. 2020); (Diaz-Carrion et al. 2021); (Rincon-Roldan and Lopez-Cabrales 2021a); (Rincon-Roldan 16
and Lopez-Cabrales 2021b); (Lombardi et al. 2020); (Zink 2011); (Longoni and Cagliano 2016); (Lechuga Sancho
et al. 2018); (Sorribes et al. 2021); (Barrena-Martínez et al. 2019); (App and Büttgen 2016); (De Prins et al. 2020);
(Wikhamn 2019); (Piwowar-Sulej 2021b); (Ybema et al. 2020); (Stankevičiūtė and Savanevičienė, 2018)
Western European countries, Australia, (Piwowar-Sulej 2021a) 1
and Asia
India (Mariappanadar 2020); (Singh et al. 2019); (Kashyap and Arora 2020); (Agarwal et al. 2021); (Kundu and Gahlawat 10
2015); (Pradhan et al. 2020); (Maheshwari et al. 2020); (Chillakuri and Vanka 2020); (Chaudhary 2020)
USA (Ardichvili 2012); (Lee 2017) 2
Developing countries are focused (Raub and Martin-Rios 2019) 1
Taiwan (Hooi et al. 2021) 1
Pakistan (Mujtaba and Mubarik 2021); (Hameed et al. 2021); (Ahmad and Umrani 2019); (Shoaib et al. 2021) 4
Chile (Gutiérrez Crocco and Martin 2019) 1
Europe, Asia and North America (Jang and Ardichvili 2020) 1
Brazil (Macini et al. 2020); (Alberton et al. 2020); (Caldana et al. 2021); (Freitas et al. 2020); (Freitas et al. 2021) 5
China (Mak et al. 2014); (Yang et al. 2019); (Hu and Jiang 2018) 3
Asia Pacific (Mariappanadar and Kramar 2014) 1
Multinational Focus (del-Castillo-Feito et al. 2022); (Brannon and Burbach 2021); (Vecchi et al. 2021); (Mariappanadar et al. 2021) 4
Australia and New Zealand (Podgorodnichenko et al. 2020b); (Southey 2016); (Mariappanadar and Aust 2017); (O’Donohue and Torugsa 2016) 4
Japan (Sotome and Takahashi 2014) 1
UAE (Al Marzouqi et al. 2020) 1
Indonesia (Parng et al. 2021) 1
Malaysia (Sathasivam et al. 2021); (Yong et al. 2020); (Ghouri et al. 2020) 3
Palestine (Aboramadan et al. 2021) 1
Vietnam (Luu 2021a); (Muisyo et al. 2021) 2
F. Qamar et al.
 Table 2  (continued)
Country Reference Count

Iran (Mashhady et al. 2021) 1

Bangladesh (Rubel et al. 2021) 1
Malaysia-China (Au and Ahmed 2014) 1
Vietnam and Korea (Luu 2021a) 1
Egypt (Al Kerdawy 2019) 1
UK (Christina et al. 2017) 1
Germany, Spain, Sweden and the United (Diaz-Carrion et al. 2018) 1
Kingdom
Spain, the Dominican Republic and Costa (Alcaraz et al. 2019) 1
Rica
Sustainable HRM and well‑being: systematic review and future…

13
 F. Qamar et al.

Fig. 3  Region-wise number of studies

and data processing procedures should be investigated and be included in the future
studies.

3.3.1 Enablers of sustainable HRM practices and sustainable HRM

as an independent variable

Most sustainable area researchers (n = 14) used sustainable HR or its practices as a

dependent variable. In contrast, its role as dependent, independent, mediator, and
the moderator can be seen in Table 3. Systematic literature review analysis revealed
that most studies were inclined towards a qualitative approach because the area is
still under exploration. Our review also identifies that there exists reasonable gap
for research in the area. Present study has taken a step to bridge the gap by provid-
ing future directions for the future research. In Fig. 4, the variable names written in
highlighted + italic font style indicate those variables that need further exploration.
For drawing Fig. 4, we utilized two distinct types of lines for each box: a dotted line
and a straight-filled line. The dotted lines highlight factors that may be utilized for
additional investigation and have been recognized as a potential gap in the system-
atic literature review process. The straight-filled line, on the other hand, only com-
prises variables that have previously been examined.
A content focused literature review of the study shows several aspects which
highlight the importance and need for sustainable HRM practices. The systematic
literature review uncovers that several existing factors enable sustainable practices
in organizations. These factors include: organizational rationale for sustainability
(Jerónimo et al. 2020), the negative externality of organizational practices [with its
sub-dimensions, i) work intensification, ii) retrenchment, iii) organizational change
and development], top management commitment (Yong et al. 2020), career own-
ership (Donald et al. 2020), and organizational change and development (Mari-
appanadar 2012a, b). Although some factors have been studied, the findings of the

13
 Table 3  Variables gap analysis
Sr. No Antecedents of Sustainable HRM Mediating Variables Moderating Variables Well-being Outcome Variable of
Sustainable HRM As Independent Vari- As Dependent Variables Well-being
ables
1 Sustainable HR Prac- Revitalized Social Employee Harm (De
tices (De Prins et al. Dialogue Prins et al. 2020)
2020) a. Output of Social
Dialogue High
Quality
b. Efficiency of Social
Dialogue High
Quality
c. Breadth of Social
Dialogue Hardware
and Software Issues
on the Social-dialogue
Agenda
(De Prins et al. 2020)
Sustainable HRM and well‑being: systematic review and future…

13
 Table 3  (continued)
Sr. No Antecedents of Sustainable HRM Mediating Variables Moderating Variables Well-being Outcome Variable of
Sustainable HRM As Independent Vari- As Dependent Variables Well-being

13
ables

2 Corporate Social Legitimacy

Responsibility a. Pragmatic Legiti-
a. Relationship macy
between employees b. Moral Legitimacy
and managers c. Cognitive Legiti-
b. Health, safety, and macy
social benefits (del-Castillo-Feito et al.
c. Employees Training 2022)
d. Diversity, opportu-
nities and no discrimi-
nation
e. Corporate volunteer-
ing
(del-Castillo-Feito et al.
2022)
3 Socially responsible HR Job Satisfaction (Kundu Employees’ intention
practices and Gahlawat 2015) to quit
(Kundu and Gahlawat (Kundu and Gahlawat
2015) 2015)
4 Sustainable HRM 1. Organizational 1. Sustainable
(Almarzooqi et al. Knowledge Sharing Employee Perfor-
2019) 2. Employee Empower- mance
ment 2. Perceived Sustain-
(Almarzooqi et al. able Organizational
2019) Support
(Almarzooqi et al.
2019)
F. Qamar et al.
 Table 3  (continued)
Sr. No Antecedents of Sustainable HRM Mediating Variables Moderating Variables Well-being Outcome Variable of
Sustainable HRM As Independent Vari- As Dependent Variables Well-being
ables

5 HR Practices Interpersonal Trust System Trust 1. Job Satisfaction 1. Intention to Remain

(Gould-Williams 2003) (Gould-Williams 2003) (Gould-Williams 2003) 2. Commitment 2. Organizational Per-
(Gould-Williams 2003) formance
(Gould-Williams 2003)
6 Responsible talent man- Employee Well-being Organizational Well-
agement practices a. Life satisfaction being
a. Responsible talent b. Work engagement a. Sustainable finan-
attraction and identi- c. Burnout cial performance and
fication d. Job satisfaction competitiveness
b. Responsible talent (Anlesinya and Ampon- b. Attraction reputa-
development sah-Tawiah 2020) tion and social legiti-
c. Responsible talent macy
retention management c. Talent retention
(Anlesinya and Ampon- d. Learning and Inno-
sah-Tawiah 2020) vation
Sustainable HRM and well‑being: systematic review and future…

(Anlesinya and Ampon-

sah-Tawiah 2020)

13
 Table 3  (continued)
Sr. No Antecedents of Sustainable HRM Mediating Variables Moderating Variables Well-being Outcome Variable of
Sustainable HRM As Independent Vari- As Dependent Variables Well-being

13
ables

7 Negative externality of Social aspect of harm

practices at macro- on employees
level a. Work-life Balance
a. Changing workforce (Au and Ahmed 2014)
demographics impact
on work life balance
b. National policy and
sustainable human
resource practices
c. Absence of social
norms supportive of
work-life balance
d. Persistence of gen-
der role stereotype
e. Extended network of
support
(Au and Ahmed 2014)
8 Work Intensification High Performance work Perceived Organiza- Health Harm
(Chillakuri and Vanka system tional Support (Chillakuri and Vanka
2020) (Chillakuri and Vanka (Chillakuri and Vanka 2020)
2020) 2020)
9 Work Intensification High Performance work Workplace Well-being Health Harm
(Chillakuri and Vanka system (Chillakuri and Vanka (Chillakuri and Vanka
2021) (Chillakuri and Vanka 2021) 2021)
2021)
10 1. Career satisfaction 1. Human Capital 1. Life-long learning Flexible Working Financial and Personal
2. Career Ownership 2. Transferable Skills 2. Employability (Donald et al. 2020) Well-being
(Donald et al. 2020) (Donald et al. 2020) (Donald et al. 2020) (Donald et al. 2020)
F. Qamar et al.
 Table 3  (continued)
Sr. No Antecedents of Sustainable HRM Mediating Variables Moderating Variables Well-being Outcome Variable of
Sustainable HRM As Independent Vari- As Dependent Variables Well-being
ables

11 CSR Dimension SR-HRM policies Individual-Organiza-

a. Equal Opportunities (Diaz-Carrion et al. tional and social value
b. Objectivity and 2020) (Diaz-Carrion et al.
Justice 2020)
c. Transparency
d. Empowerment
e. Welfare of Work-
ers and quality of
Employment
(Diaz-Carrion et al.
2020)
12 Bundle of HRM Prac- Perceived organiza- 1. Exchange ideology Employee health harm
tices tional support 2. Perceived organiza- of work
(Mariappanadar 2020) (Mariappanadar 2020) tional support a. Work restrictions on
(Mariappanadar 2020) positive health
Sustainable HRM and well‑being: systematic review and future…

b. Risk factors for

psychological health
c. Side effects of work
harm
(Mariappanadar 2020)

13
 Table 3  (continued)
Sr. No Antecedents of Sustainable HRM Mediating Variables Moderating Variables Well-being Outcome Variable of
Sustainable HRM As Independent Vari- As Dependent Variables Well-being

13
ables

13 Corporate Social Green Human Resource Environmental Out- Performance

Responsibility Management comes (Úbeda-García et al.
a. Society a. Green Skills Devel- (Úbeda-García et al. 2021)
b. Customers opment 2021)
c. Employees b. Green Motivation
(Úbeda-García et al. c. Green Involvement
2021) Corporate Social
Responsibility
a. Society
b. Customers
c. Employees
(Úbeda-García et al.
2021)
14 1. Sustainable HRM 1. Work Engagement Employee Performance
Practices 2. Organizational ration- (Jerónimo et al. 2020)
2. Organizational ration- ale for sustainability
ale for sustainability 3. Organizational Iden-
3. Organizational Iden- tification
tification (Jerónimo et al. 2020)
(Jerónimo et al. 2020)
15 1. Self-efficacy Sustainability practices Workplace
2. Sustainability prac- (Singh et al. 2019) well-being
tices (Singh et al. 2019)
(Singh et al. 2019)
F. Qamar et al.
 Table 3  (continued)
Sr. No Antecedents of Sustainable HRM Mediating Variables Moderating Variables Well-being Outcome Variable of
Sustainable HRM As Independent Vari- As Dependent Variables Well-being
ables

16 1. Top Management Green Human Resource

Commitment Management
2. Corporate Social a. Green analysis and
Responsibility Job description of Job
(Yusliza et al. 2019) Position
b. Green Performance
Assessment
c. Green Recruitment
d. Green Rewards
e. Green Selection
f. Green Training
(Yusliza et al. 2019)
17 Talent Management Sustainable Behavior Organizational Sustain-
a. Talent Acquisition (Mujtaba and Mubarik ability
b. Talent Development 2021) (Mujtaba and Mubarik
Sustainable HRM and well‑being: systematic review and future…

c. Talent retention 2021)

(Mujtaba and Mubarik
2021)
18 1. Social operations HR benefits Customer benefits
practices (Longoni and Cagliano (Longoni and Cagliano
2. Green operations 2016) 2016)
practices
(Longoni and Cagliano
2016)

13
 Table 3  (continued)
Sr. No Antecedents of Sustainable HRM Mediating Variables Moderating Variables Well-being Outcome Variable of
Sustainable HRM As Independent Vari- As Dependent Variables Well-being

13
ables

19 High Performance work 1. Line Manager Employee Voice

system practices Ability, Motivation, a. Employee interest
a. Ability-enhancing Opportunity b. Employer interest
practices 2. Employee Ability, (Mowbray et al. 2021)
b. Motivation-enhanc- Motivation, Oppor-
ing practices tunity
c. Opportunity- (Mowbray et al. 2021)
enhancing practices
(Mowbray et al. 2021)
20 Access to Decent 1. Meaning at work Work-family
Work 2. Work Engagement Enrichment
(Kashyap and Arora (Kashyap and Arora (Kashyap and Arora
2020) 2020) 2020)
21 Socially Responsible 1. Employee’s Commit- Competitive Perfor-
Human Resource ment mance
Management 2. Relational Marketing (Lechuga Sancho et al.
(Lechuga Sancho et al. (Lechuga Sancho et al. 2018)
2018) 2018)
F. Qamar et al.
 Table 3  (continued)
Sr. No Antecedents of Sustainable HRM Mediating Variables Moderating Variables Well-being Outcome Variable of
Sustainable HRM As Independent Vari- As Dependent Variables Well-being
ables

22 Integrated Framework Banking industry Stakeholders Dynamics

of Sustainable HRM analysis: in Sustainable HRM
a. Global Report- a. Justice and Equality (Macini et al. 2020)
ing Initiative (GRI) b. Transparent HR
annual sustainability practices
reports (Macini et al. 2020)
b. Employment tribu-
nal decisions
c. In-depth interviews
with top manag-
ers of the Banking
Trade Union and the
Brazilian
d. Federation of Banks
(Febraban), a trade
Sustainable HRM and well‑being: systematic review and future…

association
(Macini et al. 2020)
23 Sustainable HRM Confucianism 1. Employability of Organization Perfor-
Practice (Mak et al. 2014) Employees mance
(Mak et al. 2014) 2. Harmonious Working (Mak et al. 2014)
Environment
3. Employees’ Social
Well-being
(Mak et al. 2014)

13
 Table 3  (continued)
Sr. No Antecedents of Sustainable HRM Mediating Variables Moderating Variables Well-being Outcome Variable of
Sustainable HRM As Independent Vari- As Dependent Variables Well-being

13
ables

24 HPWS and institutional Sustainable HRM

level outcomes synthetic
management practices variable set
synthetic variable set a. Profitability
a. Flexi-time work b. Absenteeism/Sick
b. Home based work Leave
c. Tele-working (Mariappanadar 2020)
d. Compressed work-
ing week
e. Benefits
f. Trade union influ-
ence
(Mariappanadar 2020)
25 Negative Introduction of sustain- Clusters of Harm
externality of able HRM Practices indicators of negative
organizational externality (NE)
practices a. Psychological
a. Work intensification aspect of harm on
b. Retrenchment employee
c. Organizational b. Social aspect of
change and harm on employee
d. Development c. Employee work
related health harm
on the community
26 Self-efficacy Sustainability practices Organizational citizen-
(Pradhan et al. 2020) (Pradhan et al. 2020) ship behavior
(Pradhan et al. 2020)
F. Qamar et al.
 Table 3  (continued)
Sr. No Antecedents of Sustainable HRM Mediating Variables Moderating Variables Well-being Outcome Variable of
Sustainable HRM As Independent Vari- As Dependent Variables Well-being
ables

27 Green human resource Corporate social Customer relationship

management responsibility management
(Freitas et al. 2020) (Freitas et al. 2020) (Freitas et al. 2020)
28 Green human resource Green perceived organi- Green transformational Green creativity
management zational support leadership (Hameed et al. 2021)
(Hameed et al. 2021) (Hameed et al. 2021) (Hameed et al. 2021)
29 Green human resources Perceived green 1. Green voice behavior
management organizational 2. Green knowledge
(Aboramadan et al. support sharing behavior
2021) (Aboramadan et al. 3. Green helping
2021) behavior
(Aboramadan et al.
2021)
30 Socially responsible Job Crafting Authentic Leadership 1. Meaningfulness of
Sustainable HRM and well‑being: systematic review and future…

human resources (Luu 2021b) (Luu 2021b) work

practices 2. Job strain
(Luu 2021b) (Luu 2021b)
31 Green Human Resource Green knowledge- n-role Green Service
Management sharing behavior
(Rubel et al. 2021) (Rubel et al. 2021) Extra-role Green Ser-
vice Behavior
(Rubel et al. 2021)
32 1. Stakeholder Pressure Green Human Resource 1. Relative Advantages
2. Top Management Management of Green HRM
Commitment (Yong et al. 2020) 2. Green Intellectual
(Yong et al. 2020) Capital
(Yong et al. 2020)

13
 Table 3  (continued)
Sr. No Antecedents of Sustainable HRM Mediating Variables Moderating Variables Well-being Outcome Variable of
Sustainable HRM As Independent Vari- As Dependent Variables Well-being

13
ables

33 Ethical leadership style 1. Psychological safety Job Satisfaction

(Ahmad and Umrani 2. Green Human (Ahmad and Umrani
2019) Resource Manage- 2019)
ment
(Ahmad and Umrani
2019)
34 High Performance WorkTrade union Trade union Employee engagement
System (Yang et al. 2019) (Yang et al. 2019) (Yang et al. 2019)
(Yang et al. 2019)
35 CSR 1. Job Performance
(Chaudhary 2019) 2. Organizational Citi-
zenship behavior
(Chaudhary 2019)
36 Employee-oriented Trust in management Moral identity Voice behavior
HRM (Hu and Jiang 2018) (Hu and Jiang 2018) (Hu and Jiang 2018)
(Hu and Jiang 2018)
37 Socially responsible 1. Employee wellbeing Trust in management
human resource 2. Job satisfaction (Sorribes et al. 2021)
management labor 3. Job stress
practices (Sorribes et al. 2021)
(Sorribes et al. 2021)
F. Qamar et al.
 Table 3  (continued)
Sr. No Antecedents of Sustainable HRM Mediating Variables Moderating Variables Well-being Outcome Variable of
Sustainable HRM As Independent Vari- As Dependent Variables Well-being
ables
38 Sustainable HRM 1. Economic:
(Stahl et al. 2020) a. HRM role in facili-
tating value creation
b. HRM role in the
prevention of value
destruction and
fraudulent practices
2. Environmental
a. HRM role in the
efficient use of energy
and eco-friendly
practices
b. HRM role in curb-
ing environmental
pollution
Sustainable HRM and well‑being: systematic review and future…

3. Social:
a. HRM role in creat-
ing a positive work
environment and
contributing to com-
munity development
b. HRM role in
minimizing unsafe,
unhealthy or
inhumane working
conditions
(Stahl et al. 2020)

13
 Table 3  (continued)
Sr. No Antecedents of Sustainable HRM Mediating Variables Moderating Variables Well-being Outcome Variable of
Sustainable HRM As Independent Vari- As Dependent Variables Well-being

13
ables

39 Proactive environmental Green HRM Financial performance

management (O’Donohue and (O’Donohue and
(O’Donohue and Torugsa 2016) Torugsa 2016)
Torugsa 2016)
40 1. CSR Strategy 1. Socially responsible
a. International HRM strategy
Context 2. Socially responsible
b. National Context HRM policies and
(Barrena-Martínez et al. practices
2019) (Barrena-Martínez et al.
2019)
F. Qamar et al.
Sustainable HRM and well‑being: systematic review and future…

Fig. 4  Sustainability and well-being interaction model. Note: Variables that may be utilized for future
research are listed in the box with dashed lines (…………….).Whereas, straight lines (________) repre-
sent factors that have previously been explored

systematic literature review show that work intensification, retrenchment, career

ownership, and organizational change and development are the factors that need to
be further explored in this area. Because these factors are playing crucial role in ena-
bling sustainable HR practices in the organizations.
Analysis further shows that sustainable HRM exists in organizations in various
forms. Organizations are exercising several practices, such as: Green HRM prac-
tices (with or without its many forms) (Freitas et al. 2020; Aboramadan et al. 2021;
Hameed et al. 2021), and responsible talent management (with or without sub kinds)
(Anlesinya and Amponsah-Tawiah 2020). Other studies indicate high-performance
work systems and work intensification (Chillakuri 2020; Chillakuri and Vanka
2020) as strategies to achieve sustainability, but these also impact employee health
harm issues. This indication opens a realm for further investigation that how a high-
performance work system can be used to enhance employee well-being rather than
enhancing the organization’s well-being only. At the same time, the systematic liter-
ature review uncovers many potential avenues for future work. Mostly, the research-
ers recommend to explore the practices of high-performance work systems in future.
These include home-based work, teleworking, compressed working week benefits,
and trade union influence (Yang et al. 2019; Chillakuri 2020; Mariappanadar 2020;
Chillakuri and Vanka 2021; Mowbray et al. 2021). Human capital (Donald et al.
2020), transferable skills (Donald et al. 2020), access to decent work (Kashyap and

13
 F. Qamar et al.

Arora 2020), and employee-oriented HRM (Hu and Jiang 2018). These are some of
the other factors that have been highlighted by the literature to be further explored.
Furthermore, more potential areas can be identified in the detailed diagram pre-
sented under the head of Fig. 4.

3.3.2 Well‑being as an outcome of sustainable HR practices and as an enabler

for sustainable organization

In the systematic literature review process, several outcome variables of sustainable

HR practices evidence that sustainable HRM plays a great role in well-being devel-
opment of employees. Literature also highlights that ignorance of these practices
can lead employees to some unfavorable consequences, which can be minimized by
proper implementation of sustainable practices. In literature, employee well-being
has been identified as an outcome variable in several forms, such as: sustainable
employee performance (Jerónimo et al. 2020), workplace well-being (Chillakuri
and Vanka 2021), meaning at work (Kashyap and Arora 2020), sustainable behavior
(Mujtaba and Mubarik 2021), work-family enrichment (Kashyap and Arora 2020),
competitive performance (Lechuga Sancho et al. 2018), green creativity (Hameed
et al. 2021), psychological safety (Ahmad and Umrani 2019) and voice behavior (Hu
and Jiang 2018). Among the factors mentioned above, our analysis has found that
sustainable behavior, workforce enrichment, competitive performance, green crea-
tivity, psychological safety, and voice behavior are the highly recommended factors
(by these studies) to be investigated further.
Our analysis further shows that sustainable practices develop employees’ and
organizational well-being, such as organizational sustainability (Mujtaba and
Mubarik 2021), customer benefits (Longoni and Cagliano 2016), stakeholders
dynamics in sustainable HRM (Macini et al. 2020) and organizational well-being
(with its several sub-components, e.g., sustainable financial performance and com-
petitiveness, talent retention, learning, and innovation) (Anlesinya and Amponsah-
Tawiah 2020). It shows that sustainable practices lead an organization towards
employee well-being creation and organizational well-being creation. Moreover, fur-
ther analysis has identified that organizations’ ignorance towards sustainable HRM
practices creates some hurdles in its way of value creation.
The ignorance of sustainable HR practices results in employee health harm (with/
without sub-variables: work restriction on positive health, risk factors for psycho-
logical health, and side effects of work harm) issues (Mariappanadar 2012a, b;
Chillakuri 2020; Mariappanadar 2020; Chillakuri and Vanka 2021), employees’
intention to quit (Kundu and Gahlawat 2015), and social aspect of harm on employee
(such as: work-life balance) (Au and Ahmed 2014). These serious and critical fac-
tors can badly affect an organization’s image and culture. The results of systematic
analysis identify that the social aspect of harm to employees is not studied well in
sustainable HR practices and employees’ well-being literature. So, the future work
can consider these factors as a potential area to be explored.

13
Sustainable HRM and well‑being: systematic review and future…

3.3.3 Mediating variables in the relationship between sustainable HRM

and well‑being

A review of the literature (selected sample) indicates that this area is not well-
explored, and most of the focus was on theoretical argument development. Analysis
reveals that studied and identified variables are interlinked with each other. There-
fore, a nest type model emerged from the findings in which various factors work as
mediators. This study has several variables to report which act as mediators to link
sustainable HR practices and well-being. These can be identified in Fig. 4.
More focused content analysis shows that job satisfaction (Gould-Williams 2003;
Kundu and Gahlawat 2015; Anlesinya and Amponsah-Tawiah 2020; Sorribes et al.
2021), organizational knowledge sharing (Aboramadan et al. 2021; Rubel et al.
2021), employee empowerment (Almarzooqi et al. 2019), legitimacy (with/without
sub-variables: pragmatic, moral, and cognitive) (Anlesinya and Amponsah-Tawiah
2020; del-Castillo-Feito et al. 2022), perceived organizational support (Almarzooqi
et al. 2019; Chillakuri 2020; Mariappanadar 2020), life-long learning (Donald et al.
2020), employability (Mak et al. 2014; Donald et al. 2020), financial and personal
well-being (Donald et al. 2020), industrial-organizational and social value (Diaz-
Carrion et al. 2018), and sustainability practices (Singh and Vanka 2019; Pradhan
et al. 2020) are used in different studies as mediators for the nexus between sus-
tainable HRM and well-being. Of these variables, life-long learning, employabil-
ity, financial and personal well-being, industrial-organizational and social value, and
sustainability practices are some variables that have been identified to be considered
as potential areas for future research.

3.3.4 Moderating variables for sustainable HR practices and well‑being relationship

After an in-depth content analysis, this study identifies several factors that play mod-
erating role between the relationship of sustainable HR practices and well-being.
The details are provided in Fig. 4. Flexible working (Donald et al. 2020), system
trust (Gould-Williams 2003), exchange ideology (Mariappanadar 2020), Confucian-
ism (Mak et al. 2014), authentic leadership (Luu 2021a, b), moral identity (Hu and
Jiang 2018), trade union (Yang et al. 2019) and green transformational leadership
(Hameed et al. 2021) are some of the identified (potential) moderators for the said
relationship. From perspective of future research to study sustainable HR practices
and well-being relationship, our analysis identifies authentic leadership, moral iden-
tity, trade union, and green transformational leadership as potential moderators,
which can be used in future work to understand the phenomenon better.

3.4 What are the past methodological trends and potential future opportunities
from a research perspective?

After going through the selected 134 research articles, we found that the literature
linking sustainable HRM and positive outcomes, including well-being, is largely

13
 F. Qamar et al.

dominated by conceptual and review articles (i.e., 43 articles from our selected sam-
ple). For example, the works of Poon and Law (2020) and Podgorodnichenko et al.
(2020a, b). Such a large number gives clear evidence that the nexus between sustain-
able HRM and well-being is widely underexplored in terms of empirical research.
The empirical studies screened so far show that the structural equation modeling
(SEM) has been widely used as a method of analysis, i.e., it is used by authors in 25
studies including recent works of Mujtaba and Mubarik (2021) and Muisyo et al.
(2021). Traditional analytical techniques of correlation, regression (various types),
and descriptive statistics also remained popular tools of data analysis among schol-
ars, including recent studies of Sorribes et al. (2021) and Piwowar-Sutlej (2021).
The scholars also used various interviewing techniques (For example, Wellton and
Lainpelto 2021; Sathasivam et al. 2021).
The ongoing methodological trend suggests that empirical studies are more
inclined toward structural equation modelling (SEM) and traditional correlation and
regression analytical tools. Our detailed methodological analysis of the extant litera-
ture could spot a viable gap for using experimental design to empirically test sus-
tainable HRM and well-being. Despite the rigorous nature of experimental design,
the method seemed to be largely ignored over the years. We also recommend adopt-
ing Big Data Technology or Data Mining Techniques, as used in the study of Peng
et al. (2020), for example, World Values Survey (Wave 7 is available). It may be
used for understanding sustainable HRM and the well-being of multiple stakehold-
ers from a global perspective.
Please see Table 4 for methodological trends.

4 Contribution and implications

Fast-growing scholarly interest to explore sustainable HRM’s role towards well-

being derives key motivation for present study because large number of studies were
conducted during 2019–2022 (please see Fig. 2). At the same time, the published
literature highlights viable gap to conduct a detailed review for systematically sum-
marizing the research done so far in the said domain. As we could not find a single
review article that could provide a comprehensive view of studies linking sustaina-
ble HRM with well-being at work, the present research can potentially contribute to
identify past trends and future research directions. We argue that present study is rel-
atively unique as it is probably the first of its kind to systematically study the nexus
between sustainable HRM and workplace well-being; an unexplored yet appealing
relationship from contemporary HRM perspective.
Despite the fact that achieving employee well-being is among high strategic pri-
orities for managers of recent times, the quality research interventions for guiding
managers to tackle well-being related issues are still limited (Lisovskaia 2022).
Given this, our detailed review strives to articulate a holistic picture of sustainable
HRM as a strategic package and provides deeper insights to understand how sus-
tainable HRM can add value to workplace well-being from multi-dimensional per-
spectives. For example, for reducing ill-being, fostering individual well-being and

13
 Table 4  Methodological Trends
Method Study Count

Review (Aust et al. 2020); (Ardichvili 2012); (Raub and Martin-Rios 2019); (Anlesinya and Susomrith 2020); 18
(Piwowar-Sulej 2021a); (Adjei-Bamfo et al. 2020); (Al-Minhas et al. 2020); (Van Buren III 2020);
(Richards 2020); (Pham and Paillé, 2020); (Cabral and Dhar 2021); (Paulet et al. 2021); (Onkila and
Sarna 2021); (Beer et al. 2015); (Samimi and Sydow 2021); (Cooke et al. 2020); (Podgorodnichenko et al.
2020a); (Podgorodnichenko et al. 2021)
Correlation and Regression (Gould-Williams 2003); (De Prins et al. 2014); (Kundu and Gahlawat 2015); (Al Marzouqi et al. 2020); 21
(Kumar Pradhan et al. 2021); (Mariappanadar and Kramar 2014); (Kashyap and Arora 2020); (Lee 2017);
(Mariappanadar 2020); (Pradhan et al. 2020); (Yang et al. 2019); (Stankevičiūtė and Savanevičienė,
2019); (Christina et al. 2017); (Chaudhary 2020); (Hu and Jiang 2018); (Ybema et al. 2020); (Piwowar-
Sulej 2021b); (Lombardi et al. 2020); (Sorribes et al. 2021); (Mariappanadar and Aust 2017);
(O’Donohue and Torugsa 2016)
SPSS 25.0 Version and Amos 21.0 (Chillakuri and Vanka 2020) (Chillakuri and Vanka 2021) 2
Research Project (Tworzydło et al. 2021, p. 2) 1
Delphi study (Diaz-Carrion et al. 2021); (Diaz-Carrion et al. 2020); (Santana and Lopez-Cabrales 2019); (Parng et al. 5
2021); (Diaz-Carrion et al. 2018)
SEM (Hooi et al. 2021); (Mujtaba and Mubarik 2021); (Longoni and Cagliano 2016); (Yusliza et al. 2019); 25
Sustainable HRM and well‑being: systematic review and future…

(Jeronimo et al. 2020); (Úbeda-García et al. 2021); (Aust et al. 2020); (del-Castillo-Feito et al. 2022);
(Freitas et al. 2020); (Freitas et al. 2021); (Lechuga Sancho et al. 2018); (App and Büttgen 2016);
(Hameed et al. 2021); (Rincon-Roldan and Lopez-Cabrales 2021a); (Rincon-Roldan and Lopez-Cabrales
2021b); (Aboramadan et al. 2021); (Luu 2021b); (Rubel et al. 2021); (Ghouri et al. 2020); (Luu 2021a);
(Al Kerdawy 2019); (Muisyo et al. 2021); (Lee 2019); (Van Dam et al. 2017); (Shoaib et al. 2021)
Interviews (Gutiérrez Crocco and Martin 2019); (Au and Ahmed 2014); (Mak et al. 2014); (Agarwal et al. 2021); 9
(Podgorodnichenko et al. 2021); (Sathasivam et al. 2021); (Yong et al. 2020); (Alcaraz et al. 2019); (Well-
ton and Lainpelto 2021)
Content Analysis (Jang and Ardichvili 2020); (Southey 2016); (Mariappanadar et al. 2021); (Robinson et al. 2019); (Barrena- 5
Martínez et al. 2019)
Data Triangulation (Macini et al. 2020) 1

13
 Table 4  (continued)
Method Study Count

13
Conceptual (Mariappanadar 2003); (Mowbray et al. 2021); (Mariappanadar 2012a): (Mariappanadar 2012b); (Don- 25
ald et al. 2020); (Anlesinya and Amponsah-Tawiah 2020); (Alvarez-Risco et al. 2020); (Mariappanadar
2013); (Pluta and Rudawska 2016); (Baum and Hai 2019); (Lansbury 2021); (Kramar 2014); (Bush
2020); (Bondarouk and Brewster 2016); (Dao et al. 2011); (Dixon-Fowler et al. 2020); (DuBois and
Dubois 2012); (Kramar 2021); (Lopez-Cabrales and Valle-Cabrera 2020); (Mariappanadar 2014); (Poon
and Law 2020); (Ren and Jackson 2020); (Stahl et al. 2020); (Zink 2011); (Jackson and Seo 2010)
EFA and CFA (Mariappanadar 2016); (Ahmad and Umrani 2019); (Wikhamn 2019) 3
DEA (Sotome and Takahashi 2014) 1
measurements and industrial analysis
Thematic Analysis (Teeuwisse and Brannon 2020); (Sarvaiya and Arrowsmith 2021) 2
Exploratory and critical case study (Vecchi et al. 2021) 1
methodology
Content analysis and descriptive statis- (Alberton et al. 2020) 1
tics and conjoint Analysis
Descriptive statistics (Caldana et al. 2021) 1
Case Method (Maheshwari et al. 2020); (Mashhady et al. 2021) 2
F. Qamar et al.
Sustainable HRM and well‑being: systematic review and future…

broader organizational well-being. We insist that present study helps to address pre-
vailing well-being issues within contemporary organizations as it highlights effec-
tive interventions of sustainable HRM i.e., contributing factors, boundary conditions
and underlying mechanisms (please see Fig. 4).
We argue that our study is a step towards identifying and articulating new ways
of humanizing the present-day organizations as it responds to the recent research
call by Csath (2022). The model presented in Fig. 4 summarizes major themes that
emerged in our sample of 134 studies. The model presents sustainable HRM and
workplace well-being as a system or package comprising various inputs (sustainable
HRM activities and enablers, i.e., CSR and TM), processes (mediators and mod-
erators, i.e., POS) and outputs (outcomes, i.e., WB). It provides useful insights to
enrich management scholarship and help organizational practitioners to adopt sus-
tainable HRM as a strategic tool to boost well-being at work. For example, future
scholars may easily identify unexplored areas from the model and may direct their
research resources for realistic and impactful work in the domain of achieving well-
being through sustainable HRM. Similarly, they may identify ways by which various
mediators and moderators may be altered to see their value for the said nexus.
From practitioners’ viewpoint, present review offers a number of takeaways
which may address prevailing well-being issues experienced by employees. Manag-
ers or organizational heads may use interventions summarized by this review i.e.,
sustainable HRM practices, enablers, moderators, and mediators for effective func-
tioning of their organizations. Because this review portrays broader picture of effec-
tive interventions (sustainable HRM practices or enablers), adopting them could
be instrumental to achieving employee well-being or broader organizational well-
being. For example, fostering responsible talent management practices or providing
access to decent work. Similarly, various moderators or mediators may also be used
by managers for reducing employee health harm or turnovers, for example, life-long
learning or knowledge sharing. Considering these intervention in practice would
likely add value for creating better performance, psychological health and higher
retention.

5 Conclusion

This systematic literature review revealed that a strong need exists for conducting
present study. Our analysis shows several gaps in the literature on sustainable HR
practices and well-being. This study analyzed existing literature to overcome this
gap by considering theory, context, characteristics, methodological trend, and gap
analysis. This analysis also managed to answer all the proposed questions. Moreo-
ver, the analysis builds a comprehensive view of the research done so far and the
potential research avenues that should be covered in future. We believe that consid-
ering the study’s suggestions (based on the findings) would not only help manage-
ment scholars theoretically but also help managers and organizations to understand
the challenges, solutions, and related benefits of using sustainable HRM as a deter-
minant of well-being at work.

13
 F. Qamar et al.

Analysis of the selected 134 studies shows that the area has recently grasped a
wide range of attention, as most of the studies were published in the last five years.
Secondly, stakeholder theory was largely used in the previous studies which shows
that considering it would help maximize the benefits of sustainable practices.
Thirdly, published research mainly covered developing countries. Whereas, the Afri-
can countries and the developed world remained an ignored research area. Though
researchers did not focus developed countries, may be because such economies are
already doing well to address the concerns of sustainability and well-being, future
studies on sustainable HRM may consider developing African countries and other
nations as potential regions for research.
Moreover, this research concludes that previously, several factors have been stud-
ied for linking sustainable HR practices and well-being. Still, the area has emerged
as an underexplored one. This analysis shows enablers of sustainable HR prac-
tices which could trigger these practices for better well-being in organizations. Our
findings do not end here; after identifying sustainable practices’ role in employee
well-being and organizational well-being, this study highlights the consequences of
ignoring sustainable HR practices. This analysis highlights the relationship of pre-
viously tested variables and identifies the future potential areas and factors to be
explored. Their details are available under the head of characteristics. This section
may be used to understand the links and behavior of these factors which would help
researchers and practitioners to identify gaps and related policy implications.
Finally, this study provides methodological trend of the available literature which
shows that qualitative approaches have been widely used by the earlier studies. Also,
it indicates that there exists wide research gap related to empirical studies in this
domain. Present study not only provides useful trend of studies conducted so far
but also discusses their nature as well. It recommends that future researchers must
utilize the methods of Big Data Technology or Data Mining Techniques, such as the
World Values Survey. It may be used to acquire a global perspective on sustainable
human resource management and the well-being of various stakeholders. Utilizing
experimental designs and other empirical approaches are also recommended. These
methodologies could be a useful to overcome the existing gaps.
Moreover, including synonymous terms in future research on sustainable HRM
could have a number of consequences. For starters, it would broaden the scope of
the literature search, allowing for a more in-depth examination of the subject. This
broader approach may capture additional studies that use alternative terminologies,
increasing the review’s depth and breadth. Second, incorporating synonymous terms
may aid in identifying various perspectives and nuances associated with sustainable
HRM, resulting in a more comprehensive understanding of the field. Furthermore,
it may facilitate cross-disciplinary connections, allowing researchers from various
fields to contribute their knowledge and insights. Finally, using synonymous terms
may help to develop standardized and inclusive terminology in the literature on sus-
tainable HRM, promoting consistency and clarity. By considering these implica-
tions, future research can investigate the advantages of incorporating synonymous
terms while maintaining precision and relevance within the research context.
Acknowledgements There are no acknowledgements for this manuscript.

13
Sustainable HRM and well‑being: systematic review and future…

Author contributions Dr. GA and Mr. FQ contributed to the study conception and design. Material prep-
aration and analysis were performed by Mr. FQ and Mr. SR. The first draft of the manuscript was pre-
pared by Mr. FQ. Dr. GA and Mr. SR then commented on previous versions of the manuscript. Mr. SR
significantly contributed to prepare the final manuscript alongwith Mr. Faisal. Dr. GA supervised the
overall work. Finally, all the authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding The authors declare that no funds, grants or other support were received during the preparation
of this manuscript.

Data availability Information/data of all the research papers analysed during this study are included in
the body of this manuscript and its appendix. Any further information related to earlier research papers
considered for this review are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Declarations
Conflict of interest The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

References
Aboramadan M, Kundi YM, Becker A (2021) Green human resource management in nonprofit organiza-
tions: effects on employee green behavior and the role of perceived green organizational support.
Pers Rev Ahead-of-Print. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​PR-​02-​2021-​0078
Adjei-Bamfo P, Bempong B, Osei J, Kusi-Sarpong S (2020) Green candidate selection for organi-
zational environmental management. Int J Manpow 41:1081–1096. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​
IJM-​10-​2019-​0480
Agarwal V, Mathiyazhagan K, Malhotra S, Saikouk T (2021) Analysis of challenges in sustainable human
resource management due to disruptions by Industry 4.0: an emerging economy perspective. Int J
Manpow. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​IJM-​03-​2021-​0192
Ahmad I, Umrani WA (2019) The impact of ethical leadership style on job satisfaction. Leadersh Organ
Dev J 40:534–547. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​LODJ-​12-​2018-​0461
Al Kerdawy MMA (2019) The role of corporate support for employee volunteering in strengthening the
impact of green human resource management practices on corporate social responsibility in the
Egyptian Firms. Eur Manag Rev 16:1079–1095. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​emre.​12310
Al Marzouqi AH, Khan M, Hussain M (2020) Employee social sustainability: prioritizing dimen-
sions in the UAE’s airlines industry. Soc Responsib J 16:349–367. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​
SRJ-​07-​2018-​0166
Alberton A, Kieling AP, Lyra FR, Hoffmann EM, Lopez MPV, Stefano SR (2020) Competencies
for sustainability in hotels: insights from Brazil. Empl Relat Int J. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​
ER-​01-​2019-​0093
Alcaraz JM, Susaeta L, Suarez E, Colon C, Gutiérrez-Martínez I, Cunha R, Leguizamón F, Idrovo S,
Weisz N, Correia MF (2019) The human resources management contribution to social responsibil-
ity and environmental sustainability: explorations from Ibero-America. Int J Hum Resour Manag
30:3166–3189
Almarzooqi AH, Khan M, Khalid K (2019) The role of sustainable HRM in sustaining positive organ-
izational outcomes. Int J Product Perform Manag 68:1272–1292. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​
IJPPM-​04-​2018-​0165
Al-Minhas U, Ndubisi NO, Barrane FZ (2020) Corporate environmental management. Manag Environ
Qual Int J 31:431–450. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​MEQ-​07-​2019-​0161
Alvarez-Risco A, Estrada-Merino A, Perez-Luyo R (2020) Sustainable development goals in hospitality
management. In: Ruël H, Lombarts A (eds) Sustainable hospitality management. Emerald Publish-
ing Limited, pp 159–178
Amrutha V, Geetha S (2020) A systematic review on green human resource management: Implications
for social sustainability. J Clean Prod 247:119131

13
 F. Qamar et al.

Anlesinya A, Amponsah-Tawiah K (2020) Towards a responsible talent management model. Eur J Train
Dev 44:279–303. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​EJTD-​07-​2019-​0114
Anlesinya A, Susomrith P (2020) Sustainable human resource management: a systematic review of a
developing field. J Glob Responsib
App S, Büttgen M (2016) Lasting footprints of the employer brand: can sustainable HRM lead to brand
commitment? Empl Relat 38:703–723. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​ER-​06-​2015-​0122
Ardichvili A (2012) Sustainability or limitless expansion: paradigm shift in HRD practice and teaching.
Eur J Train Dev 36:873–887. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​03090​59121​12809​46
Arnold KA (2017) Transformational leadership and employee psychological well-being: a review and
directions for future research. J Occup Health Psychol 22:381
Au WC, Ahmed PK (2014) Sustainable people management through work-life balance: a study of
the Malaysian Chinese context. Asia-Pac J Bus Adm 6:262–280. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​
APJBA-​02-​2014-​0024
Aust I, Matthews B, Muller-Camen M (2020a) Common Good HRM: A paradigm shift in Sustainable
HRM? Hum Resour Manag Rev 30:100705. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​hrmr.​2019.​100705
Aust I, Matthews B, Muller-Camen M (2020b) Common Good HRM: A paradigm shift in Sustain-
able HRM? Sustain Hum Resour Manag Triple Bottom Line Multi-Stakehold Strateg Concepts
Engagem 30:100705. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​hrmr.​2019.​100705
Barrena-Martínez J, López-Fernández M, Romero-Fernández PM (2019) Towards a configuration of
socially responsible human resource management policies and practices: Findings from an aca-
demic consensus. Int J Hum Resour Manag 30:2544–2580
Baum T, Hai NTT (2019) Applying sustainable employment principles in the tourism industry: righting
human rights wrongs? Tour Recreat Res 44:371–381
Beer M, Boselie P, Brewster C (2015) Back to the future: implications for the field of HRM of the multi-
stakeholder perspective proposed 30 years ago. Hum Resour Manage 54:427–438. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1002/​hrm.​21726
Bondarouk T, Brewster C (2016) Conceptualising the future of HRM and technology research. Int J Hum
Resour Manag 27:2652–2671
Brannon DW, Burbach R (2021) Sustaining hospitality talent pools through a common pool resource
lens. In: Jooss S, Burbach R, Ruël H (eds) Talent management innovations in the international hos-
pitality industry. Emerald Publishing Limited, pp 53–78
Brunetto Y, Farr-Wharton B, Wankhade P, Saccon C, Xerri M (2022) Managing emotional labour: the
importance of organisational support for managing police officers in England and Italy. Int J Hum
Resour Manag 1–23
Bush JT (2020) Win-Win-Lose? Sustainable HRM and the promotion of unsustainable employee out-
comes. Hum Resour Manag Rev 30:100676. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​hrmr.​2018.​11.​004
Cabral C, Dhar RL (2021) Green competencies: insights and recommendations from a systematic litera-
ture review. Benchmark Int J 28:66–105. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​BIJ-​11-​2019-​0489
Caldana ACF, Eustachio JHPP, Lespinasse Sampaio B, Gianotto ML, Talarico AC, da Batalhão SAC
(2021) A hybrid approach to sustainable development competencies: the role of formal, infor-
mal and non-formal learning experiences. Int J Sustain High Educ. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​
IJSHE-​10-​2020-​0420
Chams N, García-Blandón J (2019) On the importance of sustainable human resource management for
the adoption of sustainable development goals. Resour Conserv Recycl 141:109–122
Chaudhary R (2019) Green human resource management and job pursuit intention: examining the under-
lying processes. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 26:929–937. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​csr.​1732
Chaudhary R (2020) Corporate social responsibility and employee performance: a study among indian
business executives. Int J Hum Resour Manag 31:2761–2784
Chillakuri B (2020) Understanding generation Z expectations for effective onboarding. J Organ Change
Manag 33:1277–1296. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​JOCM-​02-​2020-​0058
Chillakuri B, Vanka S (2020) Understanding the effects of perceived organizational support and high-
performance work systems on health harm through sustainable HRM lens: a moderated mediated
examination. Empl Relat Int J Ahead-of-Print. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​ER-​01-​2019-​0046
Chillakuri B, Vanka S (2021) Examining the effects of workplace well-being and high-performance work
systems on health harm: a sustainable HRM perspective. Soc Bus Rev 16:71–93. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1108/​SBR-​03-​2020-​0033

13
Sustainable HRM and well‑being: systematic review and future…

Christina S, Dainty A, Daniels K, Tregaskis O, Waterson P (2017) Shut the fridge door! HRM alignment,
job redesign and energy performance. Hum Resour Manag J 27:382–402. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​
1748-​8583.​12144
Clarke M (2011) Readings in HRM and Sustainability. Melb Tilde 117–132
Cook DJ, Mulrow CD, Haynes RB (1997) Systematic reviews: synthesis of best evidence for clinical
decisions. Ann Intern Med 126:376–380
Cooke FL, Dickmann M, Parry E (2020) IJHRM after 30 years: taking stock in times of COVID-19 and
looking towards the future of HR research. Int J Hum Resour Manag 32:1–23
Cooke FL, Xiao M, Chen Y (2021) Still in search of strategic human resource management? A review
and suggestions for future research with China as an example. Hum Resour Manage 60:89–118
Cooper B, Wang J, Bartram T, Cooke FL (2019) Well-being-oriented human resource management prac-
tices and employee performance in the Chinese banking sector: The role of social climate and resil-
ience. Hum Resour Manage 58:85–97
Csath M (2022) Organizational learning as the best business practice for adaptation in times of great
changes: a viewpoint. Dev Learn Organ Int J
Dao V, Langella I, Carbo J (2011) From green to sustainability: information technology and an integrated
sustainability framework. Green IT 20:63–79. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jsis.​2011.​01.​002
de Freitas SWR, Caldeira-Oliveira JH, Teixeira AA, Stefanelli NO, Teixeira TB (2020) Green human
resource management and corporate social responsibility. Benchmark Int J 27:1551–1569. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1108/​BIJ-​12-​2019-​0543
de Freitas SWR, Caldeira Oliveira JH, Teixeira AA, Stefanelli NO (2021) Green human resource man-
agement, corporate social responsibility and customer relationship management: relationship anal-
ysis in the Brazilian context. Int J Product Perform Manag 70:1705–1727. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​
IJPPM-​12-​2019-​0597
De Prins P, Van Beirendonck L, De Vos A, Segers J (2014) Sustainable HRM: bridging theory and prac-
tice through the ’respect openness continuity (ROC)’-model. Manag Rev 25:263–284
De Prins P, Stuer D, Gielens T (2020) Revitalizing social dialogue in the workplace: the impact of a
cooperative industrial relations climate and sustainable HR practices on reducing employee harm.
Int J Hum Resour Manag 31:1684–1704
De Witte H, Pienaar J, De Cuyper N (2016) Review of 30 years of longitudinal studies on the association
between job insecurity and health and well-being: Is there causal evidence? Aust Psychol 51:18–31
De-la-Calle-Durán M-C, Rodríguez-Sánchez J-L (2021) Employee engagement and wellbeing in times of
COVID-19: a proposal of the 5Cs model. Int J Environ Res Public Health 18:5470
del-Castillo-Feito C, Blanco-González A, Hernández-Perlines F (2022) The impacts of socially respon-
sible human resources management on organizational legitimacy. Technol Forecast Soc Change
174:121274. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​techf​ore.​2021.​121274
Denyer D, Tranfield D (2009) Producing a systematic review
Deshwal P (2015) Green HRM: an organizational strategy of greening people. Int J Appl Res 1:176–181
Di Vaio A, Palladino R, Hassan R, Escobar O (2020) Artificial intelligence and business models in the
sustainable development goals perspective: a systematic literature review. J Bus Res 121:283–314.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jbusr​es.​2020.​08.​019
Diaz-Carrion R, López-Fernández M, Romero-Fernandez PM (2018) Developing a sustainable HRM
system from a contextual perspective. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 25:1143–1153. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1002/​csr.​1528
Diaz-Carrion R, López-Fernández M, Romero-Fernandez PM (2020) Sustainable human resource man-
agement and employee engagement: a holistic assessment instrument. Corp Soc Responsib Environ
Manag 27:1749–1760. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​csr.​1921
Diaz-Carrion R, López-Fernández M, Romero-Fernandez PM (2021) Constructing an index for compar-
ing human resources management sustainability in Europe. Hum Resour Manag J 31:120–142.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​1748-​8583.​12286
Díez-Martín F, Blanco-González A, Díez-de-Castro E (2021) Measuring a scientifically multifaceted
concept. The jungle of organizational legitimacy. Eur Res Manag Bus Econ 27:100131
Dixon-Fowler H, O’Leary-Kelly A, Johnson J, Waite M (2020) Sustainability and ideology-infused psy-
chological contracts: An organizational- and employee-level perspective. Hum Resour Manag Rev
30:100690. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​hrmr.​2019.​100690
Donald WE, Baruch Y, Ashleigh MJ (2020) Striving for sustainable graduate careers. Career Dev Int
25:90–110. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​CDI-​03-​2019-​0079

13
 F. Qamar et al.

DuBois CLZ, Dubois DA (2012) Strategic HRM as social design for environmental sustainability in
organization. Hum Resour Manage 51:799–826. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​hrm.​21504
Ehnert I, Harry W, Zink KJ (2014) Sustainability and HRM. In: Sustainability and human resource man-
agement. Springer, pp 3–32
ElAlfy A, Palaschuk N, El-Bassiouny D, Wilson J, Weber O (2020) Scoping the evolution of corporate
social responsibility (CSR) research in the sustainable development goals (SDGs) era. Sustainabil-
ity 12:5544
Elkington J (1999) Triple bottom-line reporting: looking for balance. Aust CPA 69:18–21
Gardas BB, Mangla SK, Raut RD, Narkhede B, Luthra S (2019) Green talent management to unlock sus-
tainability in the oil and gas sector. J Clean Prod 229:850–862
Ghouri AM, Mani V, Khan MR, Khan NR, Srivastava AP (2020) Enhancing business performance
through green human resource management practices: an empirical evidence from Malaysian
manufacturing industry. Int J Product Perform Manag 69:1585–1607. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​
IJPPM-​11-​2019-​0520
Gollan PJ (2000) Human resources, capabilities and sustainability
Gould-Williams J (2003) The importance of HR practices and workplace trust in achieving superior per-
formance: a study of public-sector organizations. Int J Hum Resour Manag 14:28–54
Greenwood M, Anderson E (2009) ‘I used to be an employee but now I am a stakeholder’: implications of
labelling employees as stakeholders. Asia Pac J Hum Resour 47:186–200
Greve HR (2021) The resource-based view and learning theory: overlaps, differences, and a shared future.
J Manag 47:1720–1733
Guerci M, Shani ABR, Solari L (2014) A stakeholder perspective for sustainable HRM. Sustain Hum
Resour Manag 205–223
Gutiérrez Crocco F, Martin A (2019) Towards a sustainable HRM in Latin America? Union-management
relationship in Chile. Empl Relat Int J. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​ER-​01-​2019-​0036
Hameed Z, Naeem RM, Hassan M, Naeem M, Nazim M, Maqbool A (2021) How GHRM is related to
green creativity? A moderated mediation model of green transformational leadership and green
perceived organizational support. Int J Manpow. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​IJM-​05-​2020-​0244
Hooi LW, Liu M-S, Lin JJJ (2021) Green human resource management and green organizational citizen-
ship behavior: do green culture and green values matter? Int J Manpow Ahead-of-Print. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1108/​IJM-​05-​2020-​0247
Hu X, Jiang Z (2018) Employee-oriented HRM and voice behavior: a moderated mediation model of
moral identity and trust in management. Int J Hum Resour Manag 29:746–771
Jackson SE, Seo J (2010) The greening of strategic HRM scholarship. Organ Manag J 7:278–290
Jang S, Ardichvili A (2020) The role of HRD in CSR and sustainability: a content analysis of corporate
responsibility reports. Eur J Train Dev 44:549–573. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​EJTD-​01-​2020-​0006
Jerónimo HM, de Lacerda TC, Henriques PL (2020) From sustainable HRM to employee performance:
a complex and intertwined road. Eur Manag Rev 17:871–884. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​emre.​12402
Jithendran K, Baum T (2000) Human resources development and sustainability—the case of Indian tour-
ism. Int J Tour Res 2:403–421
Kainzbauer A, Rungruang P, Hallinger P (2021) How does research on sustainable human resource man-
agement contribute to corporate sustainability: a document co-citation analysis, 1982–2021. Sus-
tainability 13:11745
Kane C (2022) The future workplace: reimagining the office for the twenty-first century. in: european cit-
ies after COVID-19. Springer, pp 179–195
Kashyap V, Arora R (2020) Decent work and work–family enrichment: role of meaning at work and
work engagement. Int J Product Perform Manag Ahead-of-Print. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​
IJPPM-​03-​2020-​0133
Kassen M (2022) Open data governance as a theoretical concept: a stakeholder and institutional analysis.
In: Open data governance and its actors. Springer, pp 1–28
Kelloway EK, Barling J (1991) Job characteristics, role stress and mental health. J Occup Psychol
64:291–304
Kelman I (2021) Words without meaning? Examining sustainable development terminology through
small states and territories. Small States Territories 4:231–244
Khan KS, Kunz R, Kleijnen J, Antes G (2003) Five steps to conducting a systematic review. J R Soc Med
96:118–121
Kitchenham B (2004) Procedures for performing systematic reviews. Keele UK Keele Univ 33:1–26

13
Sustainable HRM and well‑being: systematic review and future…

Kowalski TH, Loretto W (2017) Well-being and HRM in the changing workplace. Int J Hum Resour
Manag 28:2229–2255
Kramar R (2014) Beyond strategic human resource management: is sustainable human resource manage-
ment the next approach? Int J Hum Resour Manag 25:1069–1089
Kramar R (2021) Workplace performance: a sustainable approach. Asia Pac J Hum Resour 59:567–581.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​1744-​7941.​12289
Kumar Pradhan R, Prasad Panigrahy N, Kesari Jena L (2021) Self-efficacy and workplace well-being:
understanding the role of resilience in manufacturing organizations. Bus Perspect Res 9:62–76
Kundu SC, Gahlawat N (2015) Socially responsible HR practices and employees’ intention to quit: The
mediating role of job satisfaction. Hum Resour Dev Int 18:387–406
Lange T (2016) Sustainable HRM and employee well-being: an empirical agenda. Int J Manpow
37:918–923
Lansbury RD (2021) Introduction to the symposium ‘transforming our future: a new social contract at
work’? Asia Pac J Hum Resour
Lăzăroiu G, Ionescu L, Andronie M, Dijmărescu I (2020) Sustainability management and performance in
the urban corporate economy: a systematic literature review. Sustainability 12:7705
Lechuga Sancho MP, Martínez-Martínez D, Larran Jorge M, Herrera Madueño J (2018) Understanding
the link between socially responsible human resource management and competitive performance in
SMEs. Pers Rev 47:1211–1243. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​PR-​05-​2017-​0165
Lee H-W (2017) Sustainable leadership: An empirical investigation of its effect on organizational effec-
tiveness. Int J Organ Theory Behav 20:419–453. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​IJOTB-​20-​04-​2017-​B001
Lee H-W (2019) How does sustainability-oriented human resource management work?: examining medi-
ators on organizational performance. Int J Public Adm 42:974–984
Lisovskaia A (2022) Implementing well-being practices through russian context: HRD perspective. J
East-West Bus 1–16
Lombardi R, Manfredi S, Cuozzo B, Palmaccio M (2020) The profitable relationship among corporate
social responsibility and human resource management: a new sustainable key factor. Corp Soc
Responsib Environ Manag 27:2657–2667. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​csr.​1990
Longoni A, Cagliano R (2016) Human resource and customer benefits through sustainable operations. Int
J Oper Prod Manag 36:1719–1740. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​IJOPM-​11-​2014-​0564
Lopez-Cabrales A, Valle-Cabrera R (2020) Sustainable HRM strategies and employment relationships
as drivers of the triple bottom line. Hum Resour Manag Rev 30:100689. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​
hrmr.​2019.​100689
Luu TT (2021a) Socially responsible human resource practices and hospitality employee outcomes. Int J
Contemp Hosp Manag 33:757–789. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​IJCHM-​02-​2020-​0164
Luu TT (2021b) A tale of two countries: How do employees with disabilities respond to disability inclu-
sive HR practices in tourism and hospitality industry? J Sustain Tour. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​
09669​582.​2021.​18760​73
Macini N, Fernandes Rodrigues Alves M, Oranges Cezarino L, Bartocci Liboni L, Cristina Ferreira
Caldana A (2020) Beyond money and reputation: sustainable HRM in Brazilian banks. Empl Relat
Int J Ahead-of-Print. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​ER-​12-​2018-​0331
Macke J, Genari D (2019) Systematic literature review on sustainable human resource management. J
Clean Prod 208:806–815
Maheshwari M, Samal A, Bhamoriya V (2020) Role of employee relations and HRM in driving commit-
ment to sustainability in MSME firms. Int J Product Perform Manag 69:1743–1764. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1108/​IJPPM-​12-​2019-​0599
Mak A, Cheung L, Mak A, Leung L (2014) Confucian thinking and the implications for sustainability in
HRM. Asia-Pac J Bus Adm 6:173–189. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​APJBA-​02-​2014-​0029
Malik SY, Hayat Mughal Y, Azam T, Cao Y, Wan Z, Zhu H, Thurasamy R (2021) Corporate social
responsibility, green human resources management, and sustainable performance: Is organizational
citizenship behavior towards environment the missing link? Sustainability 13:1044
Mariappanadar S (2003) Sustainable human resource strategy. Int J Soc Econ 30:906–923. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1108/​03068​29031​04837​79
Mariappanadar S (2012a) The harm indicators of negative externality of efficiency focused organizational
practices. Int J Soc Econ 39:209–220. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​03068​29121​11993​78
Mariappanadar S (2012b) Harm of efficiency oriented HRM practices on stakeholders: an ethical issue
for sustainability. Soc Bus Rev 7:168–184. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​17465​68121​12376​28

13
 F. Qamar et al.

Mariappanadar S (2013) A conceptual framework for cost measures of harm of HRM practices. Asia-Pac
J Bus Adm 5:103–114. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​17574​32131​13215​95
Mariappanadar S (2014) Stakeholder harm index: A framework to review work intensification from the
critical HRM perspective. Hum Resour Manag Rev 24:313–329. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​hrmr.​
2014.​03.​009
Mariappanadar S (2016) Health harm of work from the sustainable HRM perspective: scale development
and validation. Int J Manpow 37:924–944. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​IJM-​12-​2015-​0204
Mariappanadar S (2020) Do HRM systems impose restrictions on employee quality of life? Evidence
from a sustainable HRM perspective. J Bus Res 118:38–48. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jbusr​es.​2020.​
06.​039
Mariappanadar S, Aust I (2017) The dark side of overwork: an empirical evidence of social harm of work
from a sustainable HRM perspective. Int Stud Manag Organ 47:372–387
Mariappanadar S, Kramar R (2014) Sustainable HRM: The synthesis effect of high performance work
systems on organisational performance and employee harm. Asia-Pac J Bus Adm. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1108/​APJBA-​03-​2014-​0039
Mariappanadar S, Maurer I, Kramar R, Muller-Camen M (2021) Is it a sententious claim? An examina-
tion of the quality of occupational health, safety and well-being disclosures in global reporting ini-
tiative reports across industries and countries. Int Bus Rev. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​ibusr​ev.​2021.​
101922
Mashhady A, Khalili H, Sameti A (2021) Development and application of a service design-based process
for improvement of human resource management service quality. Bus Process Manag J 27:459–
485. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​BPMJ-​04-​2020-​0164
Mowbray PK, Wilkinson A, Tse HHM (2021) High-performance work systems and employee voice
behaviour: an integrated model and research agenda. Pers Rev 50:1530–1543. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1108/​PR-​12-​2019-​0692
Muisyo PK, Qin S, Julius MM, Ho TH, Ho TH (2021) Green HRM and employer branding: the role of
collective affective commitment to environmental management change and environmental reputa-
tion. J Sustain Tour 1–18
Mujtaba M, Mubarik MS (2021) Talent management and organizational sustainability: role of sustainable
behaviour. Int J Organ Anal Ahead-of-Print. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​IJOA-​06-​2020-​2253
Müller-Christ G, Remer A (1999) Environmental economics or business ecology? Preliminary thoughts
on a theory of resource management. Oper Environ Manag 21st Century Asp Tasks Perspect 69–87
Nuis JW, Peters P, Blomme R, Kievit H (2021) Dialogues in sustainable HRM: examining and position-
ing intended and continuous dialogue in sustainable HRM using a complexity thinking approach.
Sustainability 13:10853
O’Donohue W, Torugsa N (2016) The moderating effect of ‘Green’HRM on the association between
proactive environmental management and financial performance in small firms. Int J Hum Resour
Manag 27:239–261
Okoli C, Schabram K (2010) A guide to conducting a systematic literature review of information systems
research
Omidi A, Dal Zotto C (2022) Socially responsible human resource management: a systematic literature
review and research agenda. Sustainability 14:2116
Onkila T, Sarna B (2021) A systematic literature review on employee relations with CSR: state of art and
future research agenda. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag n/a. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​csr.​2210
Parng Y-J, Kurrahman T, Chen C-C, Tseng ML, Minh Hà H, Lin C-W (2021) Visualizing the hierarchical
sustainable human resource management under qualitative information and complex interrelation-
ships. Manag Environ Qual Int J 32:1422–1447. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​MEQ-​04-​2021-​0086
Paulet R, Holland P, Morgan D (2021) A meta-review of 10 years of green human resource management:
is Green HRM headed towards a roadblock or a revitalisation? Asia Pac J Hum Resour 59:159–
183. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​1744-​7941.​12285
Pellegrini C, Rizzi F, Frey M (2018) The role of sustainable human resource practices in influencing
employee behavior for corporate sustainability. Bus Strategy Environ 27:1221–1232
Peng L, Liu H, Nie Y, Xie Y, Tang X, Luo P (2020) The transnational happiness study with big data tech-
nology. ACM Trans Asian Low-Resour Lang Inf Process TALLIP 20:1–12
Pham DDT, Paillé P (2020) Green recruitment and selection: an insight into green patterns. Int J Manpow
41:258–272. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​IJM-​05-​2018-​0155

13
Sustainable HRM and well‑being: systematic review and future…

Piwowar-Sulej K (2021a) Human resources development as an element of sustainable HRM: with the
focus on production engineers. J Clean Prod 278:124008. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jclep​ro.​2020.​
124008
Piwowar-Sulej K (2021b) Core functions of Sustainable Human Resource Management. A hybrid litera-
ture review with the use of H-Classics methodology. Sustain Dev
Pizzi S, Caputo A, Corvino A, Venturelli A (2020) Management research and the UN sustainable devel-
opment goals (SDGs): a bibliometric investigation and systematic review. J Clean Prod 276:124033
Pluta A, Rudawska A (2016) Holistic approach to human resources and organizational acceleration. J
Organ Change Manag 29:293–309. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​JOCM-​11-​2014-​0210
Podgorodnichenko N, Akmal A, Edgar F, Everett AM (2020a) Sustainable HRM: toward addressing
diverse employee roles. Empl Relat Int J Ahead-of-Print. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​ER-​01-​2019-​0016
Podgorodnichenko N, Edgar F, McAndrew I (2020b) The role of HRM in developing sustainable organi-
zations: Contemporary challenges and contradictions. Hum Resour Manag Rev 30:100685. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​hrmr.​2019.​04.​001
Podgorodnichenko N, Edgar F, Akmal A (2021) An integrative literature review of the CSR-HRM nexus:
Learning from research-practice gaps. Hum Resour Manag Rev. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​hrmr.​
2021.​100839
Poon TS-C, Law KK (2020) Sustainable HRM: An extension of the paradox perspective. Hum Resour
Manag Rev. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​hrmr.​2020.​100818
Pradhan RK, Jena LK, Panigrahy NP (2020) Do sustainability practices buffer the impact of self-efficacy
on organisational citizenship behaviour? J Indian Bus Res 12:509–528. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​
JIBR-​05-​2019-​0170
Randev KK, Jha JK (2019) Sustainable human resource management: a literature-based introduction.
NHRD Netw J 12:241–252
Ranjbari M, Esfandabadi ZS, Zanetti MC, Scagnelli SD, Siebers P-O, Aghbashlo M, Peng W, Quatraro F,
Tabatabaei M (2021) Three pillars of sustainability in the wake of COVID-19: A systematic review
and future research agenda for sustainable development. J Clean Prod 297:126660
Raub SP, Martin-Rios C (2019) “Think sustainable, act local”—a stakeholder-filter-model for translating
SDGs into sustainability initiatives with local impact. Int J Contemp Hosp Manag 31:2428–2447.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​IJCHM-​06-​2018-​0453
Ren S, Jackson SE (2020) HRM institutional entrepreneurship for sustainable business organizations.
Hum Resour Manag Rev 30:100691. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​hrmr.​2019.​100691
Ribeiro RP, Gavronski I (2021) Sustainable management of human resources and stakeholder theory: a
review. Rev Gest Soc E Ambient 15:e02729–e02729
Richards J (2020) Putting employees at the centre of sustainable HRM: a review, map and research
agenda. Empl Relat Int J Ahead-of-Print. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​ER-​01-​2019-​0037
Rincon-Roldan F, Lopez-Cabrales A (2021a) Linking organisational values and sustainability: the role of
AMO practices. Pers Rev Ahead-of-Print. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​PR-​06-​2020-​0414
Rincon-Roldan F, Lopez-Cabrales A (2021b) The impact of employment relationships on firm sustain-
ability. Empl Relat Int J Ahead-of-Print. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​ER-​12-​2020-​0522
Robinson RN, Martins A, Solnet D, Baum T (2019) Sustaining precarity: critically examining tourism
and employment. J Sustain Tour 27:1008–1025
Roca-Puig V (2019) The circular path of social sustainability: an empirical analysis. J Clean Prod
212:916–924
Rubel MRB, Kee DMH, Rimi NN (2021) The influence of green HRM practices on green service behav-
iors: the mediating effect of green knowledge sharing. Empl Relat Int J 43:996–1015. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1108/​ER-​04-​2020-​0163
Samimi E, Sydow J (2021) Human resource management in project-based organizations: revisiting the
permanency assumption. Int J Hum Resour Manag 32:49–83
Santana M, Lopez-Cabrales A (2019) Sustainable development and human resource management: a sci-
ence mapping approach. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 26:1171–1183. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1002/​csr.​1765
Sarvaiya H, Arrowsmith J (2021) Exploring the context and interface of corporate social responsibility
and HRM. Asia Pac J Hum Resour n/a. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​1744-​7941.​12316
Sathasivam K, Che Hashim R, Abu Bakar R (2021) Automobile industry managers’ views on their
roles in environmental sustainability: a qualitative study. Manag Environ Qual Int J 32:844–
862. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​MEQ-​09-​2020-​0194

13
 F. Qamar et al.

Schulte P, Vainio H (2010) Well-being at work–overview and perspective. Scand J Work Environ
Health 422–429
Secundo G, Ndou V, Del Vecchio P, De Pascale G (2020) Sustainable development, intellectual capi-
tal and technology policies: a structured literature review and future research agenda. Technol
Forecast Soc Change 153:119917
Shah SMA, Jiang Y, Wu H, Ahmed Z, Ullah I, Adebayo TS (2021) Linking green human resource
practices and environmental economics performance: the role of green economic organizational
culture and green psychological climate. Int J Environ Res Public Health 18:10953
Sharpley R (2020) Tourism, sustainable development and the theoretical divide: 20 years on. J Sustain
Tour 28:1932–1946
Shoaib M, Abbas Z, Yousaf M, Zámečník R, Ahmed J, Saqib S (2021) The role of GHRM practices
towards organizational commitment: a mediation analysis of green human capital. Cogent Bus
Manag 8:1870798
Silva S, Nuzum A-K, Schaltegger S (2019) Stakeholder expectations on sustainability performance
measurement and assessment. a systematic literature review. J Clean Prod 217:204–215
Singh S, Vanka S (2019) Voice matters: Why HR should listen to employee voice? Strateg HR Rev
18:268–271. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​SHR-​04-​2019-​0026
Singh SK, Pradhan RK, Panigrahy NP, Jena LK (2019) Self-efficacy and workplace well-being: mod-
erating role of sustainability practices. Benchmarking Int J 26:1692–1708. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1108/​BIJ-​07-​2018-​0219
Sobhani FA, Haque A, Rahman S (2021) Socially responsible HRM, employee attitude, and bank
reputation: the rise of CSR in Bangladesh. Sustainability 13:2753
Sorribes J, Celma D, Martínez-Garcia E (2021) Sustainable human resources management in crisis
contexts: Interaction of socially responsible labour practices for the wellbeing of employees.
Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 28:936–952. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​csr.​2111
Sotome R, Takahashi M (2014) Does the Japanese employment system harm productivity perfor-
mance? Asia-Pac J Bus Adm 6:225–246. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​APJBA-​02-​2014-​0031
Southey K (2016) To fight, sabotage or steal: are all forms of employee misbehaviour created equal?
Int J Manpow 37:1067–1084. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​IJM-​12-​2015-​0219
Stahl GK, Brewster CJ, Collings DG, Hajro A (2020) Enhancing the role of human resource man-
agement in corporate sustainability and social responsibility: A multi-stakeholder, multidimen-
sional approach to HRM. Sustain Hum Resour Manag Triple Bottom Line Multi-Stakehold
Strateg Concepts Engagem 30:100708. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​hrmr.​2019.​100708
Stankevičiūtė Ž, Savanevičienė A (2018) Designing sustainable HRM: the core characteristics of
emerging field. Sustainability 10:4798
Stankevičiūtė Ž, Savanevičienė A (2019) Can sustainable HRM reduce work-related stress, work-fam-
ily conflict, and burnout? Int Stud Manag Organ 49:79–98
Teeuwisse V, Brannon DW (2020) A qualititaive exploration of sustainble talent management of
hospitality interns’ career intentions based on their pre-, post- and present practical placement
experiences. In: Ruël H, Lombarts A (eds) Sustainable hospitality management. Emerald Pub-
lishing Limited, pp 63–82
Tworzydło D, Gawroński S, Opolska-Bielańska A, Lach M (2021) Changes in the demand for CSR
activities and stakeholder engagement based on research conducted among public relations spe-
cialists in Poland, with consideration of the SARS-COV-2 pandemic. Corp Soc Responsib Envi-
ron Manag n/a. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​csr.​2189
Úbeda-García M, Claver-Cortés E, Marco-Lajara B, Zaragoza-Sáez P (2021) Corporate social respon-
sibility and firm performance in the hotel industry. the mediating role of green human resource
management and environmental outcomes. J Bus Res 123:57–69. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jbusr​
es.​2020.​09.​055
Van Buren III HJ (2020) The value of including employees: a pluralist perspective on sustainable
HRM. Empl Relat Int J Ahead-of-Print. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​ER-​01-​2019-​0041
Van Dam K, Van Vuuren T, Kemps S (2017) Sustainable employment: the importance of intrinsically
valuable work and an age-supportive climate. Int J Hum Resour Manag 28:2449–2472
Vecchi A, Della Piana B, Feola R, Crudele C (2021) Talent management processes and outcomes
in a virtual organization. Bus Process Manag J 27:1937–1965. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​
BPMJ-​06-​2019-​0227
Vyas L (2022) “New normal” at work in a post-COVID world: work–life balance and labor markets.
Policy Soc 41:155–167

13
Sustainable HRM and well‑being: systematic review and future…

Wellton L, Lainpelto J (2021) The intertwinement of professional knowledge culture, leadership practices
and sustainability in the restaurant industry. Scand J Hosp Tour 21:550–566
Westerman JW, Rao MB, Vanka S, Gupta M (2020) Sustainable human resource management and the
triple bottom line: Multi-stakeholder strategies, concepts, and engagement. Hum Resour Manag
Rev 30:100742
WHO (2021) Comprehensive Mental Health Action Plan 2013–2030
Wikhamn W (2019) Innovation, sustainable HRM and customer satisfaction. Int J Hosp Manag 76:102–
110. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​ijhm.​2018.​04.​009
Wright PM, Steinbach AL (2022) Pivoting after almost 50 years of SHRM research: toward a stakeholder
view. Asia Pac J Hum Resour 60:22–40
Xiao Y, Watson M (2019) Guidance on conducting a systematic literature review. J Plan Educ Res
39:93–112
Yang W, Nawakitphaitoon K, Huang W, Harney B, Gollan PJ, Xu CY (2019) Towards better work in
China: mapping the relationships between high-performance work systems, trade unions, and
employee well-being. Asia Pac J Hum Resour 57:553–576. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​1744-​7941.​
12205
Ybema JF, van Vuuren T, van Dam K (2020) HR practices for enhancing sustainable employability:
implementation, use, and outcomes. Int J Hum Resour Manag 31:886–907
Yong JY, Yusliza M-Y, Jabbour CJC, Ahmad NH (2020) Exploratory cases on the interplay between
green human resource management and advanced green manufacturing in light of the ability-moti-
vation-opportunity theory. J Manag Dev 39:31–49. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​JMD-​12-​2018-​0355
Yusliza M-Y, Norazmi NA, Jabbour CJC, Fernando Y, Fawehinmi O, Seles BMRP (2019) Top manage-
ment commitment, corporate social responsibility and green human resource management. Bench-
marking Int J 26:2051–2078. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​BIJ-​09-​2018-​0283
Zaugg RJ, Blum A, Thom N (2001) Sustainability in human resource management. Eval Rep Surv Eur
Co Inst Arbeitsbericht Inst Für Organ Pers Univ Bern Eidgenöss Pers
Zheng X, Zhu W, Zhao H, Zhang C (2015) Employee well-being in organizations: theoretical model,
scale development, and cross-cultural validation. J Organ Behav 36:621–644. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1002/​job.​1990
Zink KJ (2011) The contribution of quality of work to organisational excellence. Total Qual Manag Bus
Excell 22:567–585

Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps
and institutional affiliations.

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under
a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted
manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and
applicable law.

13