We examine how green HRM reshapes the employment relationship during sustainability-oriented change, asking whether it produces mutual gains or work intensification for employees.
Two-wave surveys from 306 employee–supervisor dyads across Thai firms were analysed with CFA, SEM and bootstrapping to test a dual-path model (resource gain via green self-efficacy; resource loss via role overload) and regulatory focus contingencies.
Green HRM promotes green behaviour through self-efficacy yet constrains it through role overload. Prevention focus amplifies the overload pathway; promotion focus attenuates efficacy-based gains. The results reveal a double-edged pattern consistent with work-intensification concerns in green transitions.
Our two-wave, dyadic design mitigates same-source bias but remains observational, limiting causal inference and leaving the study exposed to omitted variables. Measures include perceptions of GHRM and behaviours; future work should add objective and behavioural indicators and archival KPI data. The Thai context aids focus yet constrains generalisability; cross-national comparisons and multi-level designs (team/union/establishment) are needed. Experiments or panel studies could trace resource spirals over time. Theoretically, integrating COR with an employment-relations lens foregrounds resource allocation and control; testing voice/consultation as moderators can clarify when green HRM yields mutual gains rather than work intensification.
Treat GHRM as governance, not just motivation. Co-design environmental KPIs with employees (or unions) and run routine workload audits before rollout. Pair each new green target with time credits, micro-training, and enabling resources; publish target–time ledgers so added tasks are reconciled with hours. Embed SLA-bound issue-raising channels to surface overload early and trigger negotiated adjustments. Calibrate to regulatory orientations: give promotion-focused staff autonomy and stretch projects; provide prevention-focused staff with clearer sequencing, buffers, and guardrails. Shift appraisals from compliance-only to capability-and-voice models, rewarding peer-validated green improvements rather than surveillance metrics.
Sustainability transitions succeed when they are socially just. Positioning GHRM as governance highlights how green targets can redistribute effort and risk onto workers, with consequences for well-being, equity, and trust. Voice-centric arrangements – joint consultative forums, transparent workload audits, and accessible issue-raising channels – help prevent work intensification, reduce burnout, and support inclusive participation in environmental change. Fairly resourced green work can strengthen employee commitment, retention, and community legitimacy, whereas under-resourced mandates risk greenwashing and resistance. Our results inform the policy–industry dialogue on designing climate action that advances environmental goals and decent work.
We reposition green HRM within employment relations, showing how sustainability practices can reallocate risks and demands to employees, with implications for voice, consultation and workload governance. The study contributes an ER-oriented account of green HRM's bright and dark sides in an Asia–Pacific emerging economy.
