1 Introduction

Wherever we look around us during the opening decade of the 21st century, we confront daunting challenges to global sustainability. […] overall, there can be little doubt that the sustainability of human life on earth and the health of the large complex systems in which human life is imbedded are under threat. (Wells 2011, p. 133)

As a response to growing global ecological and social problems along with pressures from stakeholders, including investors, many organizations worldwide have committed themselves to building more sustainable business organizations. Within this building sustainability has mainly been used to advance solutions for global environmental problems such as climate change, pollution, and the problem that the world population – and particularly within industrialized and industrializing countries – consumes more resources than are reproduced (for example, Bansal 2005). However, in the recent decade interest in social and human aspects of sustainable development and its implications for managing human resources has been growing considerably (for example, Pfeffer 2010; Wilkinson et al. 2001; Zaugg et al. 2001). Sustainability challenges the traditional economic market model (see chapter “Sustainability and HRM” in this book; Wilkinson et al. 2001) and those dealing with one of the most important resources in organizations, the human resource, i.e. all managers responsible for decision-making on people in the organization. Whether ethical, normative or instrumental motifs dominate the choices for sustainability in HRM (see also chapter “Sustainability and HRM” in this book), the HR function certainly has an “important role to play in sustainability” (Boudreau and Ramstad 2005, p. 134) because decisions for or against sustainable business behavior will be made and implemented by people in organizations.

Interestingly, several authors have observed parallels in debates on ecological, social and human sustainability (see Ehnert 2009a; Pfeffer 2010; Wilkinson et al. 2001) raising questions which consider how companies treat and exploit or deploy their resources (see also Wilkinson 2005) – and in particular their human resources (see Clarke 2011; Pfeffer 2010; Wilkinson et al. 2001). In more and more organizations, the realization is rising that an overly strong focus on a short-termed efficient and cost-effective exploitation of natural, social and human resources is not enough to ensure organizational viability in the long run (for example, Docherty et al. 2002; 2009; Dunphy and Griffith 2008; Wilkinson 2005). Instead, it is assumed that organizations must find ways of becoming more sustainable which enables them to be viable in the long-run whilst contributing actively to the viability of their economic, social and ecological environments.

The importance of sustainability for HRM has been described in detail in chapter “Sustainability and HRM” of this book and the present chapter extends these views. Although sustainability can be used to support a company in its search for alternative ways of managing any resource, including their human resources, this chapter is based on the assumption that sustainability is more valuable as a proactive principle aimed at prevention of harm along with regeneration and reproduction of resources. Sustainable HRM is therefore perceived as a design option for organizations that need or want to sustain their resource base including the human resource base (within and beyond organizational boundaries). Sustainable HRM is relevant for those organizations which aim to introduce and implement corporate sustainability strategies, because much of the implementation success depends on whether those who are responsible for implementation understand why their organization needs to become more sustainable (see also chapter “Sowing Seeds for Sustainability in Work Systems”, in this book). Sustainable HRM is also highly relevant for enterprises that suffer from

  • Employee shortages or expect shortages due to demographic developments (see also chapter “Practitioner’s View on Sustainability and HRM” in this book),

  • High absence rates because employees experience work-related health problems or loss of meaningfulness and sense at the workplace,

  • High rates of fluctuation in the ‘stock’ of employees, and

  • Employees with inadequate skills and commitment.

Contributions in the area of sustainability and HRM have been made by scholars from a variety of distinct fields including corporate sustainability research, work psychology, HRM, corporate (social) responsibility and ergonomics/human factors research (see chapters “Sustainability and HRM and Social Sustainability and Quality of Working Life” in this book). So far, scholars have addressed, in particular, the importance of sustainability for HRM and possibilities of operationalizing the concept. While efficiency- and social responsibility-oriented approaches dominate the literature, the substance-oriented or integrative views are given less prominence in research.

These research gaps are addressed in this chapter in order to advance the conceptual development of Sustainable HRM. An important objective of this chapter is to discuss how HRM can contribute not only to implementing corporate sustainability strategies (and to support top-management in doing so) but also to making HRM itself more focused on the sustainability concept. The main contributions of this chapter are twofold: First, based on the initial chapter in this book, a framework is developed which helps to demonstrate why organizations are increasingly faced with plurality, paradox and tensions which illustrates why, as a result, sustainability can be a viable response. Second, a paradox framework for Sustainable HRM for understanding the dynamics over time and initial strategies for coping with tensions and paradoxes is discussed along with how tensions can be used in a fruitful way for designing viable sustainable organizations.

This chapter is structured into five sections. In the section following this introduction, HRM is considered through a sustainability ‘lens’ by re-discussing the HR role, goals and notion of success in different organization contexts. In the third section, ideas for how Sustainable HRM could be conceptualized are presented with potential tensions and paradoxes discussed. Next, paradox is applied via a lens of theorizing Sustainable HRM by presenting a paradox framework and options for how to deal with tensions. The final section is dedicated to conclusions and implications.

2 Extending HRM Through a Sustainability Lens

In this chapter, HRM is referred to as a broad, generic term in the sense of people management (Boxall 2007, p. 49). Particular attention is given to the employment relationship i.e. “the connection between employees and employers through which individuals sell their labor” (Budd and Bhave 2010, p. 51) and how decisions about individual employees are made along with which rules or policies guide these decisions. HR specialists act on the behalf of organizations in ‘managing’ the employment relationship and therefore are the focus of analysis. A framework differentiating classical, neo-classical and modern organization contexts is used in this chapter (see Table 1) to highlight the historical development of people management from early industrialization to more complex and potentially to Sustainable HRM approaches. The terms (neo-)classic and modern do not refer to a certain HRM discourse or epistemological and ontological positions but are used to describe a development over time (see Brandl et al. 2012; Remer 1997; Smith and Lewis 2011). Within this framework, organizations and HRM could also opt for non-sustainable business models in the modern context. However, we assume that this will be more and more difficult due to changing institutional contexts (e.g. legislation in the European Union or United Nations initiatives) and stakeholder pressures (see also chapter “The Relevance of the Vision of Sustainability to HRM Practice” in this book). The framework allows a better understanding of the tensions and paradoxes related to implementing sustainability in organizations.

Table 1 Framework for alternative organizational contexts and HRM implications
Full size table

2.1 Changing Organization-Environment Relationships Challenge the Purpose of the Organization

Researching the relationship between organizations and their environment has a long tradition in organization theory (e.g. Rasche 2008) but is normally of less importance for HRM, except for contextual HRM research. However, if organizations wish to successfully implement sustainability strategies, it is of the essence that HR executives recognize that they do not “operate in a vacuum” (Mariappanadar 2003). This is especially relevant for large multi- and transnational enterprises which have global influence and are not limited by national legislation or institutional frames (see e.g. Rasche 2008 or chapter “Sustainability and HRM in International Supply Chains” in this book). In HRM history, not only has the context of organizing and strategy-making changed but also the implications for HRM and its role (see Table 1).

The classical approach to management is based on the perception of the institutional, legal, socio-political and economic organizational context having relatively low complexity, little dynamics and few changes. In this classical context the purpose of a business organization is very clear – not only to make but to maximize profit (see also Friedman 1970). To reach this goal, the best possible solution was sought in early industrialization, based on the research traditions of Frederic W. Taylor’s Scientific Management, Max Weber’s Bureaucracy research and Henry Fayol’s Administrative Science (see Remer 2004; Smith and Lewis 2011). The implications for people management in a classical context are to support the owner(s) of the company in putting ‘one-best way’ solutions into practice and to minimize costs of the ‘production factor’ personnel. In a classical context, it is hence possible to largely ignore organizational environments and employee interests as there are no particular resource shortages or constraints – or as these are at least not recognized. This does, however, not exclude the possibility that paternalistic employers might have personal interests in treating their workers well.

The neo-classical approach to management considers that the organization context has become more complex and is not completely controllable. Organizations have to increase their efforts for profit-making by considering constraints (such as shortages in labor markets), by using resources more efficiently and by maximizing risk-adjusted return on capital (e.g. Jensen and Meckling 1976). In order to be successful, organizations need to identify diverse means that help them to achieve the end (purpose) of making profit, they have to be internally and externally aligned with their environments meanwhile they have to identify the best option within the particular context ‘either’ solution A ‘or’ B (see Smith and Lewis 2011). The key management, and also HRM challenge, in this context is to create ‘purposeful’ behavior i.e. behavior of organization members that helps to reach the purpose of the organization. Research in the tradition of the human relations movement, motivation theories, group theories, behavioral theories etc. have contributed to a much better understanding of how HRM can develop this purposeful behavior (Remer 2004) and hence internal and external alignment and fit. Increasingly people, or ‘human resources’, are regarded as assets or as a potential asset for an organization to grow so create value and human resources are seen as one of the most important resources to enable achievement of sustained competitive advantage (Wright et al. 2001). Neo-classical approaches to HRM such as High Performance Work Systems (e.g. Becker and Huselid 1998), or high involvement (e.g. Vandenberg et al. 1999) approaches are based on the assumption that employer and employee interests are similar. HRM, therefore, is seen as contingent on external and internal requirements. However, increasing tensions between organizations and their environments can be observed which also have an impact on HRM (e.g. Evans and Lorange 1991; Evans and Génadry 1999).

The third approach in the framework is shown in the image of highly complex and dynamic, largely uncontrollable modern organization contexts with non-linear and global interdependencies (e.g. Mendenhall et al. 1998). In these contexts, the purpose of organizations is continuously challenged and it is possible that profit-making in the (neo-)classical way may even endanger organizational viability and legitimacy (see also chapter “Sustainability and HRM” in this book). This is the situation where organizations can be observed to be pursuing multiple purposes (e.g. profit and social responsibility) and measure their performance in multiple bottom lines not just the bottom line of financial profit. New notions of corporate success allow business organizations to make ‘both’/‘and’ – or even more complex – choices. The organizational objective becomes to combine durable problem-solving and corporate viability (efficiency-existence-paradox (Remer 2004)). Theoretical approaches which have fostered this view include, for example, systems-development theory, non-linear approaches, complexity theory (see also chapter “Fostering Corporate Sustainability” in this book), co-evolutionary, ecological, culture theories and ethical approaches (Remer 2004). Organizations are increasingly perceived as pluralistic socio-economic systems where contradictions, tensions and paradoxes are inherent (e.g. Smith and Lewis 2011). The proactive management and active HRM, within such organizations, becomes an important HRM task (Evans 1999, p. 327) which can then foster creativity, problem-solving and innovation.

One of the most serious challenges for the organization-environment relationship is that unlimited economic growth is not possible within limited global resources (e.g. Gladwin et al. 1995) and that business organizations need to become active participants in developing and maintaining more sustainable economic systems. While the classical and the neo-classical approach to management and HRM are strongly driven by the economic rationality of efficiency and effectiveness in which it is completely ‘rational’ to treat any resource, including people, in an efficient way, this approach is insufficient or incomplete from a sustainability perspective (Ehnert 2009a).

Treating employees as costs to be reduced (classical approach) or as assets to be developed and value to be created (neo-classical approach) dominate today’s discussion in mainstream HRM (see Brewster and Larsen 2000). The problem with this perspective is that (HR) managers driven by efficiency and cost-reduction can reach economic goals on a short-term basis – for example, shares offered on a stock exchange rise when an organization announces plans to reduce the number of employees for cost cutting reasons. However, on a long-term basis, the positive performance effects are uncertain. Instead, unintended feedback effects of extreme efficiency strategies such as downsizing can come back, like a boomerang, to harm organizations (e.g. chapter “The Model of Negative Externality for Sustainable HRM” in this book). These effects are, for example, damage to the organization’s reputation, to its learning and skills capacity and shortages of capabilities that are needed in the future (see Wilkinson 2005). This is a clear limitation within the economic rationality of efficiency; however, it seems that this limitation is not always recognized. In an article on downsizing Wilkinson (2005) observes an “extreme pathological fear of becoming inefficient” (p. 1082) which means that not only sick organizations but also healthy organizations are cutting the number of their employees to meet their short term profit goals or to increase their short term financial performance or to look good (or at least to not look bad in comparison to their peers).

In a modern organizational context, the definitions of human resources and the goals and role of HRM are extended. The debated notion of ‘human resource’ is not seen from an object-orientation (people as cost and a production factor that needs to be minimized) but from a subject-orientation which means people are creative and social beings who do also have a value in their own right (‘Eigenwert’) and a life beyond organizational boundaries that interrelates with who they are and what they do at the workplace (see also the special issue on ethics and HRM in the Journal of Business Ethics (2012), Vol. 111). People at work and their usefulness for achievement of organizational goals are regarded from more than a purely instrumental view, but also from a relational view (see Paauwe 2004). This does have clear implications for HRM such as providing conditions for employees to balance their work and private lives (Ehnert 2009a) or refusing maximum (self-)exploitation of employees (even if this was possible).

In the past decade, however, more (mainstream) HR scholars have become critical of the neo-classical approach and have contributed to extending the pure efficiency/business rationale focus through arguing recommending a lens of social responsibility. For example, Boxall and Purcell (2003) have defined three critical HR goals: (1) productivity, (2) flexibility and (3) social legitimacy. The authors acknowledge potential tensions between these goals and suggest balancing them with the help of excellent people management. Paauwe (2004) and colleagues (Boon et al. 2009) developed a ‘balanced’ approach to HRM by integrating social responsibility and a ‘relational rationality’ explicitly into a context-based approach to HRM (see also the special issue in Personnel Review, Vol. 38, No. 5, 2009). In this sense, sustainability can be interpreted as a response to the changes in the organization-environment relationships.

2.2 Sustainability as a Response for Organizations and HRM to Economic, Social and Ecological Challenges

Companies within the World Business Council on Sustainable Development (WBCSD) are often leading firms engaged within not very sustainable industries (energy, oil, cement, etc.). Still, these are often pioneers in their industries seeking a complete re-thinking in views of sustainable development and strongly shape opinions about how to define and integrate sustainability into corporate strategies and practices. In 2007, when Sustainable HRM had not been a term commonly used in practice, the author of this chapter analyzed the websites of 82 European member organizations of the WBCSD for explicit or implicit links between their sustainability strategies and HRM (Ehnert 2009a). In the analysis 32 companies showed no link between HR and sustainability or provided only brief statements which could not be analyzed further, however, the other 50 companies did provide a link and more information. All of these 50 organizations are multi-national enterprises (MNEs), headquartered in 15 European countries, with 11 MNEs in Germany, 8 in the Netherlands, 6 in United Kingdom, 5 in France, 3 each in Denmark and Norway, 2 in Finland and Sweden, 1 each in Croatia, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Portugal and Russia (for details see Ehnert 2009a).

From a broad perspective, different concepts were used in the analysis and the most common ones were sustainability, sustainable development, Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and Corporate Responsibility. Sometimes, these concepts are used synonymously in corporate practice. The diversity of concepts-in-use also reflects the academic discussion on corporate sustainability and CSR, where we find two main academic streams of literature with ‘separate pasts’ but potentially with a ‘common future’ (Montiel 2008). Despite the differences in vocabulary, most companies had clearly integrated sustainability into a statement of the corporate policy or strategy. The model illustrates some of the key assumptions expressed on the websites (theories-in-use) explaining why organizations have decided to become more sustainable (see Fig. 1). Drivers for sustainability are mentioned such as the increasing demand for efficiency and competitiveness, demographic trends (lower birth rates), intensive work (causing work-related health problems), tight labor markets (lack of needed talent) and failure of education systems (lack of provision of needed talent).

Fig. 1
figure 00111

Practice-based model of Sustainable HRM (Source: Ehnert (2009a), p. 228. With permission)

Full size image

From these internal and external drivers or challenges, companies had deduced general objectives for considering sustainability in their corporate strategies summarized by Ehnert (2009a, b) in the following categories:

  • Value creation, performance and long-term success

  • Obtaining legitimacy for managerial action (“license to operate”)

  • Strengthen a company’s reputation and image

  • Creating accountability and transparency

  • Improving the quality of life for employees and societies, and

  • Creating trust and trustworthiness (p. 206).

In addition to these general strategic objectives, particular objectives related to HR on the websites could be subsumed under the following categories illustrating key internal drivers for why companies link the idea of sustainability to HRM (Ehnert 2009a, b):

  • Attracting talent and being recognized as an “employer of choice”

  • Maintaining a healthy and productive workforce

  • Investing into the skills of the current workforce, and

  • Creating employee trust, employer trustworthiness and sustained employment relationships.

Not every company mentioned objectives in all of these categories, however, the purpose of the analysis was to show that companies had started integrating sustainability into their core strategies and also linked sustainability to HR issues. To summarize the findings, a practice-based model of Sustainable HRM had been developed (see Fig. 1). The companies suggested very diverse HR practices to address the key challenges (see Fig. 1 and Table 2). Of course, this analysis does not suggest that companies actually do what they say they do – but, as employees are important stakeholders for the companies, they maybe likely to hold their employers accountable for what they communicate.

Table 2 Sustainable HRM strategies and exemplary HR activities
Full size table

Concerning the framework presented in Table 1, the categories can be interpreted in the way that the companies organized in the WBCSD are increasingly extending their notion of success such as fostering their long-term viability and success or obtaining social legitimacy. However, it seems that this is undertaken still in a quite conservative manner i.e. from a neo-classical approach, with only few tendencies towards more modern ways of thinking (such as creating trust, improving the quality of life for societies - or communities in which companies are operating). Seeing that these are companies which have decided to take a leading role in the movement towards sustainable development, this incremental approach is surprising and in the future, we will see if these objectives are sufficient and which companies are really trying to make a profound change towards becoming more sustainable businesses and which are only ‘greenwashing’.

2.3 Sustainable HRM Characteristics and Starting Points

Yet, how can the idea of sustainability be translated systematically to the HRM level? What would an HRM system look like which deserves the attribute ‘sustainable’? How can such a system be differentiated from prior strategic or long-term approaches to HRM? In this book, our authors provide a variety of suggestions on how sustainability can be linked to HRM and in chapter “Sustainability and HRM”, we identified four general approaches to understanding sustainability and translating this to the business level based on the underlying key motifs. First, a normative, ethical approach to sustainability focusing on the moral implications for management and HRM; second, an efficiency-oriented approach to sustainability focusing on costs that can be saved or new value which can be created; third, a substance-oriented approach to sustainability focusing, as suggested by Aristotle and as applied in sustainable forest and fishing industries, on the regeneration and development (or ‘reproduction’) of resources, of capital, of relationships etc.; and fourth, an integrative approach accepting both normative and rational decision-making as a part or organizational reality, making use of the three previous approaches and balancing potential tensions and paradoxes (Ehnert 2009a). As an alternative, Cohen et al. (2012) identified three approaches or ‘routes’ to Sustainable HRM, a values-based route (which is similar to the normative, ethical approach), a strategic route (which is reflected by the efficiency-oriented approach focusing on value-creation) and a defensive route (which is reflected by the efficiency-oriented approach focusing on risk avoidance and cost reduction). These authors did not offer a substance-oriented approach to sustainability.

For this chapter, meanwhile, sustainability refers to the balance of resource reproduction and consumption in an organization and HRM (see Ehnert 2009a) and thus ‘entails the preservation, regeneration, and development of the ecological, economic, and social resources of a system’ (Sena and Shani 2009, p. 84). This definition of sustainability is preferred because it emphasizes the regenerative, maintaining and preventive aspects which are of importance for a co-existence of organizations within their social and ecological environments that is very often neglected in purely ethical or efficiency-oriented approaches. It is however recognized that an essentially functional, instrumental view of sustainability is insufficient for HR practice in situations of ethical dilemmas (Ehnert and Harry 2012) or in situations where tensions and paradoxes are involved (Ehnert 2009a). Therefore, an integrative approach to sustainability is pursued with a distinction between the ethical and the economic dimension (see also Paauwe 2004; Kozica and Kaiser 2012).

As discussed in chapter “Sustainability and HRM” in this book, the notion of Sustainable HRM is relatively new in the discussion on HRM and subject to diverse interpretations (see, e.g. Cohen et al. 2012; Ehnert 2009a; Hartog et al. 2008). Ideally, Sustainable HRM systems have the ability or capability of being both efficient and effective on the one hand, and self-sustaining (or regenerative, nourishing and supporting development) on the other. This idea already links to the challenges in modern organization contexts (Table 1). In a prior publication, the current author has proposed a working definition of Sustainable HRM as

the pattern of planned or emerging human resource strategies and practices intended to enable organizational goal achievement while simultaneously reproducing the HR base over a long-lasting calendar time and controlling for self-induced side and feedback effects of HR systems on the HR base and thus on the company itself. (Ehnert 2009a, p. 74)

This understanding of Sustainable HRM is based on the assumption that modern companies currently face the challenge of maintaining their overall corporate resource base and in doing so they need to respond to multiple tensions, paradoxical choice situations and to moral or ethical dilemma situations (Ehnert 2009a; Kozica and Kaiser 2012). Since 2009, more publications have pointed towards the importance of HRM taking its role more seriously to contribute to human sustainability (for example, Pfeffer 2010), which is part of reproducing the HR base and making HRM systems themselves more sustainable (see also the special issue in management revue, 3/2012). Although the ecological dimension of Sustainable HRM has not been mentioned explicitly in the definition above, the basic assumption underlying the development of this approach is that organizations need to treat all their resources in a sustainable way (see Müller-Christ 2001).

In the meantime, in the international debate, more scholars and practitioners have asserted that HRM could have a critical role in facilitating or leading the development of economically, ecologically and socially sustainable business organizations and in creating sustainability cultures (e.g. Becker and Grove 2011; Colbert and Kurucz 2007; Clarke 2011; Jackson et al. 2011; Sroufe et al. 2010) in collaboration with top-management and CSR/sustainability departments. In this context, Cohen and colleagues (2012) defined Sustainable HRM as

the utilization of HR tools to help embed a sustainability strategy in the company and the creation of an HRM system that contributes to the sustainable performance of the firm. Sustainable HRM thus creates the skills, motivation, values, and trust to achieve a triple bottom line, and at the same time ensures the long-term health and sustainability of both the firm’s internal (i.e., employees) and external communities, with policies that reflect equity, development and well-being and help support environmentally friendly practices. (p. 5, italics in original)

Cohen et al. (2012) also identified several international frameworks which allow linking sustainability to HRM - such as the United Nations Global Compact, the ISO26000 standard promoting responsible business practices or social responsibility, the OECD guidelines for multinational enterprises, the SA8000 standard and the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) promoting social and sustainable developments. Potentially relevant for HRM are all sections in these guidelines which refer to the employment relationship in the organization and their supply chains (see also chapters “The Model of Negative Externality for Sustainable HRM and Sustainability and HRM in International Supply Chains” in this book). HR relevant guidelines in the GRI focus on labor standards developed by the International Labour Organisation (ILO) in Geneva (see also chapter “Enterprise Sustainability and HRM in Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises” in this book). Most international standards and guidelines are based on an ethically universal perspective assuming that the underlying values and practices are going to be accepted in different contexts and cultures.

From an integrative view, the understanding of Sustainable HRM advanced in this chapter is a strategic one, in the sense that strategic decisions are regarded as relevant, proactive and as focusing on key aspects (Scholz 1987), long-term oriented, environment-oriented, systematic and holistic (Ehnert 2009a). This integrative and strategic approach is also contextual, considering cultural, institutional etc. contexts of organizations (see also Table 2). Sustainable HRM, as understood in this chapter, is an approach to the management of the employment relationship and individual employees which has the following key characteristics (extended from Ehnert 2011):

  • Long-term-oriented: Today’s requirements to use human resources efficiently and effectively are balanced with tomorrow’s requirements to maintain, nourish and develop people’s health, qualification and engagement (Ehnert 2009a) by integrating the ‘future into the present’ (Evans 1999). The future is anticipated by considering the ‘inherent laws’ (for an example see Gratton et al. 1999) and ‘inherent values’ of human resources (see Greenwood 2002), even if it does mean that investments need to be made or if it means abandoning the maximum exploitation of human resources (Ehnert 2009a) or of unsustainable HRM practices and processes.

  • Impact-control oriented: The impact of HR strategies and practices on the organization, HRM itself and on employees’ qualification, engagement and health are controlled (see also chapter “The Model of Negative Externality for Sustainable HRM)”. The organization not only controls its impact or ‘externalities’ on critical resources within the organization but also on their ‘origin’ i.e. organizational environments where these resources come from (e.g. nature, families, communities, education systems).

  • Substance and self-sustaining oriented: The ability of the HRM system and organization to sustain itself ‘from within’ in its social, ecological and economic environments while allowing regeneration and development of its human and social resources. The traditional means-ends-thinking is extended by a substance-maintenance-thinking (see Luhmann 1995) which means that it is important for a business organization to perform but also to maintain its ‘substance’ (see also chapter “Fostering Corporate Sustainability” in this book for a translation into practice).

  • Partnership-oriented: The ability of the HRM system to develop trustful and mutual exchange relationships with key stakeholders (such as NGOs, unions) and ‘resource holders’ (i.e. those social ‘eco-systems’ which influence people before they enter an organization). Instead of exploiting resources or resource origins in a one-sided manner (Müller-Christ 2011), HRM contributes to their survival by creating mutual resource exchange relationships (resource and learning partnerships).

  • Multiple-bottom lines oriented: Sustainable HRM is able to integrate multiple (such as economic, human, social, ecological) bottom lines into their performance management systems and use new social or ecological indicators to be integrated in the HRM controlling system. The objective is to use these indicators for external sustainability reporting but also for internal steering and HRM assessment purposes.

  • Paradox-oriented: The ability of the HRM system and individual organization members to cope cognitively and emotionally with plurality, complexity and tensions is developed. Potential tensions are between short- and long-term objectives, multiple bottom lines or global vs. local Sustainable HRM. The objective of Sustainable HRM is to meet the challenge of fostering HRM creativity and innovativeness especially in difficult times.

In this way, Sustainable HRM extends traditional HRM strategy, content and processes in several important ways and shifts the attention of the organization to three strategic goals (resource exploitation/exploration), substance maintenance (see also chapter “Practitioner’s View on Sustainability and HRM” in this book) and social legitimacy. Table 2 illustrates how these Sustainable HRM characteristics could be translated into HRM practices. This is not a complete list but offers first examples for HRM design implications.

To conclude, the debate on sustainability shifts the focus of attention back to the discussion about ‘the purpose’ of the organization and about the role of HRM in helping the organization to achieve multiple purposes.

3 Key Elements of a Paradox Framework for Sustainable HRM

As discussed in the previous section, Sustainable HRM can be interpreted as a possible strategic answer to increasing organizational plurality, ambiguity and contradictory requirements but is also recognized as producing potentially new tensions and paradoxes if sustainability is taken seriously as a concept to develop economically, socially and ecologically sustainable organizations. In prior writing, the current author has therefore suggested the use of paradox as a lens for theorizing upon Sustainable HRM (Ehnert 2009a). Since then, paradox theory has been developed substantially by authors such as Smith and Lewis (2011) as well as Andriopoulos and Lewis (2010). In addition the link between HRM and paradox theory has been further explored (Ehnert and Brandl 2012; Kozica and Kaiser 2012). The term ‘theorizing’ is used here both in Weick’s (1995) sense of an “interim struggle in which people intentionally inch toward stronger theories” (p. 385) and in Lewis’ (2000) sense theorizing means “developing a frame that encompasses opposites, enabling a more complicated understanding of their coexistence and interrelationships” (Lewis 2000, p. 774). Conceptualizing paradox refers to illustrating the idea of “both/and” instead of “either/or” choices (Lewis 2000). Building on and extending from Ehnert (2009a), key elements of a paradox framework for Sustainable HRM and key strategies for coping with paradoxes and tensions are presented in the following section.

3.1 Mapping Tensions and Paradoxes in Sustainable HRM

Paradox is a term with multiple meanings (see Erickson and Fossa 1998; Lewis 2000; Poole and Van de Ven 1989). An early definition of paradox stems from Slaatte (1968, p. 4) cited by Cameron (1986, p. 545) who describes paradox as

an idea involving two opposing thoughts or propositions which, however, contradictory, are equally necessary to convey a more imposing, illuminating, life-related or provocative insight into truths than either factor can muster in its own right. What the mind seemingly cannot think it must think; what reason is reluctant to express it must express!

Cameron (1986) asserts that “Both contradictions in a paradox are accepted and present. Both operate simultaneously.” (p. 545). A newer and broader definition suggests “paradox as contradictory yet interrelated elements that exist simultaneously and persist over time” (Smith and Lewis 2011, p. 382). In this chapter, paradoxical tensions are understood to be phenomena underlying and being created by paradoxes, or more precisely by their two or multiple contradictory ‘poles’. Inconsistencies can be observed between journal articles using the term ‘paradox’ (such as the synonymous use of paradox, tension, duality, contradiction, or differences in understanding the term ‘tension’), but this gap in the literature is not the topic of this chapter. Instead, the key elements of a paradox framework mapping, categorizing and ‘managing’ paradoxes are discussed.

As Lewis (2000) has noted, the first step is to map i.e. to identify paradoxes and tensions. Based on a literature review and on prior empirical research (e.g. Lüscher and Lewis 2008), Smith and Lewis (2011) propose a framework which allows the categorizing of organizational tensions such as belonging, learning, organizing, and performing. If these positions are understood as ‘poles’ and combined in a 3 × 3 matrix, overall a combination of ten categories are created (learning::belonging; learning::organizing etc.). Ehnert (2009a) identified three key paradoxes of Sustainable HRM, “(1) the tensions between deploying human resources efficiently and sustaining the human resource base and the ‘origin’ of human resources (efficiency-substance-paradox) (2) tensions between this dual economic rationality (efficiency and substance) and a relational rationality (social legitimacy) (efficiency-responsibility-paradox), and (3) short- and long-term effects (present-future-paradox)” (extended from p. 174; see Fig. 2). These tensions have their origin in contradictory rationalities (see Kozica 2011; Ehnert 2009a) and in plurality that characterizes modern organizations (see also paradoxes of performing identified by Smith and Lewis (2011, p. 383)).

Fig. 2
figure 00112

Paradox framework for Sustainable HRM (Source: Ehnert (2009a), p. 175. With permission)

Full size image

In Fig. 2, the spiral is the symbol for the development of tensions in Sustainable HRM over time which operates between the oppositions of the three paradoxes illustrated on the left-hand side. On the right-hand side of the figure the three key paradoxes of Sustainable HRM are illustrated for the workforce and work process or individual level. The first key paradox (efficiency-substance-paradox) has its origin in the traditional notion of success in HRM focusing mostly on financial performance criteria and on the current workforce but not on what needs to be done today to have certain resources available in the future. Making choices which are both efficient and sustainable creates a dual economic rationality (Fig. 2; see also Müller-Christ 2011). The challenge for HRM is to deploy resources efficiently and simultaneously to sustain the future resource base for a resource which is a very particular one.

The second key paradox (efficiency-responsibility-paradox) refers to the tensions between economic rationality and relational rationality (Paauwe 2004) or ethical rationality (Kozica and Kaiser 2012). The aim is not resource regeneration and development but to maintain social legitimacy by acting in a socially responsible way. This is challenging for HRM as requirements for maintaining substance, deploying resources efficiently and being socially responsible could be different. For example, with regard to HRM guidelines such as GRI (see chapter “Enterprise Sustainability and HRM in Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises)”, probably cover today’s stakeholder needs well. Yet, the question is whether following the guidelines potentially neglects substance-oriented choices.

The third key paradox (present-future-paradox) comes from the characteristic of Sustainable HRM to be long-term oriented or more precisely to balance short- and long-term requirements. This requirement clashes with many observations of HRM in practice and with many conceptual approaches to HRM. The critique of being too short-term oriented is not new to HRM. HR practitioners have been observed to find themselves in conflicting situations between short-termed profit making (e.g. labor-cost pressure) on the one hand and long-term organizational viability on the other (e.g. Paauwe 2004; Wright and Snell 2005). One of the reasons is the over-emphasis on performance maximization which has made HRM in some organizations not only into strategic partners but into ‘servants of senior management’ focusing on short-term and operational challenges (Evans 1999). For a successful implementation of sustainability in HRM, the challenge will be to balance short- and long-term requirements by considering the values, needs and development conditions of the workforce today and by anticipating future requirements.

The paradox framework in Fig. 2 tries to make these three key paradoxes visible in a first step and to make them ‘manageable’ in a second. The model is based on the assumption that from the key paradoxes a ‘zone of tensions’ is created for Sustainable HRM and that active coping strategies at organizational and individual level are needed to deal with them. To conclude, the assumption from corporate sustainability that win-win solutions can be created almost automatically (see chapter “Sustainability and HRM)” has been contested in this chapter. Instead, the contention is advanced that tensions and paradoxes need to be expected that have to be (pro-)actively dealt with to create innovative and sustainable solutions.

3.2 Exemplary Coping Strategies for Sustainable HRM

Whether paradoxes foster change or lead to inertia depends on how they are dealt with (Czarniawska 1997; Lewis 2000). Paradox/duality theory views opposites not “as ‘either/or’ choices the appropriateness of which depends on a particular context, (as in contingency theory) but dualities that must be reconciled or dynamically balanced” (Evans and Génadry 1999, p. 368). There are subtle differences in basic assumptions about duality theory (e.g. Evans 1999) and paradox theory (e.g. Smith and Lewis 2011). We use paradox theory for Sustainable HRM, because it is based on the conceptualization of a dynamic equilibrium model that desires to illustrate the dynamics and tensions that we expect to occur in ‘modern’ organization contexts (see Table 1).

Poole and Van de Ven (1989) proposed four general ways of dealing actively with paradox, accept the paradox and the two or more contradictory poles and use them in a constructive way (opposition), separate the poles in space or time (spatial and temporal separation) or integrate the poles at a higher level (synthesis) (see also Kozica and Kaiser 2012). Ehnert (2009a) has combined Poole and Van de Ven’s (1989) logical coping strategies with psychological (emotional) ones as individuals react very differently to paradoxical situations – from enjoyment to fear and inertia - and as the logical coping strategies do have different effects on the emergence of tensions. Opposition means that the tensions remain and need to be coped with in that very moment, for example (Ehnert 2009a), by reframing (Bartunek 1988; Hampden-Turner 1990) or balancing i.e. compensating opposing forces around an equilibrium (Remer 2001) or by counterintuitive action (Ofori-Dankwa and Julian 2004). The actor needs to accept, tolerate or bear the tensions emotionally (Ehnert 2009a). Spatial and temporal separations avoid the tensions in the same location or at the same time and postpone the situation where a decision-maker has to deal with the tensions to the future. Psychologically, this is similar to an avoidance strategy and might be felt by the actor as reducing the tensions experienced. Synthesis, the most difficult option, offers something novel which reconciles the contradictory poles at least temporarily. Tensions are absorbed, reduced or overcome (Ehnert 2009a). In Table 3, the four modes of coping (or coping strategies) of Poole and Van de Ven (1989) are juxtaposed with the three key paradoxes identified for Sustainable HRM.

Table 3 Coping with paradoxes in Sustainable HRM
Full size table

To summarize, accepting co-existence is the first answer to deal actively with paradox and it can be further developed to reach synthesis in an advanced balancing process (Ehnert 2009a; see also Poole and Van de Ven 1989). The temptation and danger is that choices for sustainability could be postponed (by spatial or temporal separation) to the future instead of making necessary choices today and integrate the future into the present.

4 Conclusions

In science, and in politics, there is a growing consensus that the life, as we know it, on this planet can only be sustained for the current and future generations if the international community and especially business organizations collaborate in a common and global effort. Many companies seem to have become aware of their role in this effort, however, it seems that many HR executives, to date, are still too hesitant to take an active role in contributing to the development of sustainable business organizations although HRM could possibly actively lead and integrate efforts – ideally with support from top and line managers. To trigger this process in HR research and practice, the goal of this chapter has been to provide avenues on how to conceptualize and implement Sustainable HRM and on how to deal with paradoxes and tensions potentially involved in this process.

A major objective of this chapter was to highlight some of the weaknesses in (Strategic) HRM research from a sustainability lens. It has been shown that an efficient HRM is necessary but not sufficient influence to make HRM systems themselves sustainable and to make vital contributions to supporting corporate sustainability. HR executives need to ask themselves serious questions about how to fill the potential new role of HRM, in which knowledge and competences are needed, how these can be developed, how to implement sustainability in HR practices and processes and whether barriers for implementation need to be removed. These barriers could include a lack of knowledge about sustainability and about the complex economic, ecological and social interdependencies, or resistance or fear of sustainability strategies.

The chapter concludes by outlining implications for practice and future research on sustainability and HRM. For practice, the author suggests that this important strategic task should not be handed over to CSR and specialized sustainability departments only, but, that those involved in managing the employment relationship should cross functional and disciplinary boundaries to identify key HR-related issues and to advance these together with their colleagues. The main reason for this is that HRM can have an important role in driving and supporting the implementation of top-down strategies, or, to stimulate the emergence of bottom-up strategies developed by engaged employees. Several key paradoxes of Sustainable HRM and appropriate coping strategies have been discussed. Depending on the organizational context different approaches to Sustainable HRM might be appropriate and HRM potentially needs to balance between general sustainability strategies and contextual design options.

For future research, both conceptual and empirical research is needed. Future basic conceptual research should continue extending the conceptual and theoretical foundation of Sustainable HRM and link these to existing indicators and measurements (such as those offered by GRI; see, for example, Cohen et al. 2012; Olbert-Bock and Ehnert 2013). Theories and insights from diverse disciplines, such as psychology, ethics, sociology, ergonomics, ecology and biology could be helpful in extending the theoretical foundation. Second, conceptual research should also take into account more than before of the importance of paradoxes and tensions for HRM (see Brandl et al. 2012; Ehnert and Brandl 2012), how these have been dealt with so far in HRM theory and how knowledge of how to cope with tensions and paradoxes can be extended.

As Sustainable HRM and related concepts are emerging, further empirical research is needed. The key challenge of this research is to explore what organizations are actually doing in making their HRM systems more sustainable and in exploring the role of HRM in developing sustainable business organizations. We need comparative case studies, explorative interviews and studies comparing Sustainable HRM across cultures (see also chapters “Sustainable HRM in the US, Sustainable HRM in East and Southeast Asia, Sustainable HRM in Europe, and Sustainable HRM in Peruvian Companies” in this book).