Green human resource management (GHRM) techniques have been used by numerous organisations because of the emphasis on attaining a sustainable environment. The impact of GHRM procedures on current employees in industrialised nations has been the subject of numerous studies. However, few studies have looked at how potential employees see GHRM practices in an organisation before starting work. This study aims to investigate how potential employees’ job pursuit intentions (JPI) are impacted by their perception of GHRM.
A moderated mediation model was put forth with gender and educational qualifications investigated as a moderator and organisational attractiveness (OA) acting as a mediator. The sample included 224 final-year students from technical institutions in India for this investigation. An experimental scenario-based methodology, having self-administered questionnaires, was utilised to investigate people’s impressions of a fictitious organisation. Partial least squares structural equation modelling was utilised to investigate the framework using bootstrapping techniques.
The results confirmed that prospective applicants’ JPI and GHRM were shown to be highly correlated and the GHRM–JPI interaction was mediated by OA. The demographic variables, i.e. gender and educational qualification, however, did not contribute to our knowledge of the link mentioned above.
Through the provision of evidence regarding the psychological assessments that candidates go through during the selection process, organisations can formulate suitable tactics to attract talent to their establishments. The findings demonstrate how GHRM may help organisations become talent magnets. This information could encourage practitioners to successfully incorporate GHRM into employee initiatives, policies and practices related to human resources to draw in qualified candidates.
In addition to offering more perspectives on how environmentally conscious behaviour affects people, the study responds to the request for research integrating the various disciplines of environmental management and human resource management (HRM). It contributes to the literature on sustainable HRM by offering a thorough grasp of the circumstances under which GHRM affects potential employee outcomes. In order to accomplish sustainability, the study emphasises the critical importance of integrating sustainability aspects into human resource systems. It highlights the role that HRM plays in attaining sustainable development of the environment.
1. Introduction
Changes in the climate and rising temperatures, deforestation, pollution of the environment and industrial waste are just a few of the environmental issues faced by the world today (Chen et al., 2023; Relvas et al., 2025; HESS, 2025; Nik Abdul Rashid and Mohammad, 2011). Many organisations are attempting to reduce the adverse effects that their business activities have on the ecosystem as a consequence of the expectations of the present population and raising consciousness about environmental concerns (Gilal et al., 2019; Freitas et al., 2020). Ren et al. (2018) emphasised that through the adoption of efficient ecological leadership throughout organisations, the area of green human resource management (GHRM) has emerged as ecological responsibility has gained increasing recognition. GHRM shows its organisation-wide strategy for improving environmental effectiveness (Ren et al., 2018) and highlights its ethical ideals (Chaudhary, 2019a). Thus, the GHRM system was created to integrate conventional methods of human resource management (HRM) with sustainable development procedures to attempt towards organisational sustainable behaviour and a healthy environment (Mensah et al., 2021; Siyambalapitiya et al., 2018). Although different interpretations of GHRM have been proposed by scholars, they all fall under one general heading. For instance, GHRM is defined as the implementation of HRM policies that foster the responsible utilisation of environmental assets and encourage the objectives of sustainability given by Chaudhary (2018, p. 306). By establishing green programs and campaigns and encouraging green principles, GHRM techniques can help businesses develop an “eco-advantage” tradition that goes beyond energy savings, waste disposal and a decline to incorporate ecological concerns in many facets of personnel conduct (Masri and Jaaron, 2017).
In the GHRM literature, the primary focus has been on organisational consequences rather than the impacts on individual employees (Chaudhary, 2021). Furthermore, GHRM scholarship has focused on the effects of current employees on a personnel level (Chaudhary, 2018); yet, researchers have paid a lesser priority to examining how GHRM influences the perspectives and actions of potential staff members (Chaudhary, 2019a, 2021). There is still much to learn about how adopting green procedures in businesses impacts job seekers’ willingness to work for these companies (Hanson-Rasmussen and Lauver, 2017). The perceptions of employment searchers regarding GHRM strategies in organisations have not been extensively studied. For example, research suggests that prospective employees find organisations using GHRM principles appealing and express a desire to pursue careers within their organisation (Khan and Muktar, 2020; Chaudhary, 2019a). To take steps to safeguard the ecosystem (secondary stakeholder), these businesses are obligated to treat their employees (primary stakeholders) with respect (Chaudhary, 2018). Additionally, companies that are sustainable and morally upright enjoy a favourable image among others in the industry (Tarigan et al., 2021). As a result, these businesses are seen by potential employees as their preferred employers.
Researchers have examined how employment seekers perceive the adoption of organisational green operations by evaluating their job pursuit intentions (JPI) and organisational attractiveness (OA), given that they are yet outsiders and do not serve as actual staff members within the organisation (Choi et al., 2021; Chaudhary, 2021; Degrassi, 2019; Guerci et al., 2016; Sohn et al., 2015; Duarte et al., 2014; Rupp et al., 2013). According to Jones et al. (2016), people may react differently to green activities in organisations because of potential differences in their opinions and principles about these procedures. Consequently, determining the kind of people who are inclined to be drawn to companies implementing GHRM policies is also essential (Chaudhary, 2021). According to earlier research, individuals who hold green principles have a greater tendency to gravitate towards businesses that use environmentally friendly procedures (Chaudhary, 2018, 2021; Hanson-Rasmussen and Lauver, 2017). It is crucial to research how companies entice candidates for jobs; otherwise, they may leave the candidate pool, have a detrimental impact on the hiring and selecting procedure and have few benefits in terms of attracting skilled candidates (Firfiray and Mayo, 2017; Turban et al., 1998).
2. Review of literature
The fundamental concepts of person-environment fit theory, signalling theory and social identity theory (SIT) serve as the basis for the paper’s theoretical structure. The signalling theory states that when looking for the organisations they want to apply to, job seekers make the most of the limited information they have (Rynes, 1991). Candidates’ opinions of an organisation’s qualities and traits are influenced by the quantity and kind of information they learn about it during the hiring process (Turban et al., 1998). Putting money into green initiatives like GHRM improves the company’s image and demonstrates to prospective employees that it is an ethical employer that cares about the surroundings and community in which it works (Story et al., 2016).
GHRM can make a substantial contribution to the effective creation and execution of an environmental management system by coordinating HRM procedures, including hiring and selection, training and development and performance and pay administration, with the company’s ecological objectives (Jabbour et al., 2013). Consequently, it has been emphasised that to create sustainable organisations, sustainability must be incorporated into the HR framework (Jabbour and Santos, 2008). Utilising a variety of HRM techniques, GHRM aims to strengthen environmental objectives and cultivate a workforce committed to ecological sustainability and environmental consciousness (Masri and Jaroon, 2017).
According to Bednarska (2016), OA is the extent to which candidates think a company is an appealing place to work. Candidates are inclined to apply for jobs in an organisation if they are drawn towards it (Presley et al., 2018). To help applicants establish their opinions towards engaging with a specific firm, signalling-based processes are best positioned to comprehend how they receive information given by organisations and build ideas of OA (Pham and Paille, 2020). Being drawn to an organisation enables someone to acquire peer recognition and develop a personality, according to SIT (Highhouse et al., 2007, p. 143). According to Dutton et al. (1994), when people characterise themselves using similar traits and qualities that they employ to describe their company, it is believed that one is firmly associated with that organisation. One of the significant drivers of people’s identity and sense of community is the organisation in which they work (Lievens and Highhouse, 2003). Suggesting that applicants’ organisational appeal and desire to pursue employment increase with their level of organisational connection.
JPI is the desire of the candidate to seek an employment possibility in a prospective organisation (Hoang et al., 2020). According to Bednarska (2016), JPI reveals a candidate’s preparedness to enter or stay in the candidature pool. It is possible to infer from the knowledge of SIT that JPI may benefit from perceived GHRM practices (Choi et al., 2021). Organisations that use GHRM practices are seen as more desirable by potential employees, which raises their JPI (Chaudhary, 2018). A study conducted by Kumari and Saini (2018) found that OA and JPI are highly impacted by projected organisational corporate social responsibility (CSR) repute. Furthermore, Chaudhary’s (2021) study showed that the relationship between GHRM and JPI is mediated by OA. Additionally, Khan and Muktar (2020) endorsed the idea that OA mediates the connection between JPI and green recruitment.
Recent research highlights three major features in the GHRM–JPI interaction. First, GHRM continuously enhances organisational appeal and JPI through mediators such as employer attractiveness, reputation and prestige (Lubabu and Chen, 2022; Fernandez and Ganesan, 2023; Damoah, 2025). Second, individual-level moderators such as personal green values and pro-environmental consciousness influence candidate responses (Kartika et al., 2023). Third, OA remains a major mechanism, particularly for Gen Z (Indria et al., 2025). Though they emphasise contextual variance, conceptual evaluations (Nguyen and Nguyen, 2025; Sharma and Bhardwaj, 2025) confirm GHRM as a crucial employer signal, highlighting the need for further critical, culturally grounded research.
Signalling theory, which holds that employment applicants read organisational messages like sustainability commitments as indicators of underlying beliefs and practices, has been used extensively to study applicant attractiveness (Spence, 1973; Connelly et al., 2011). Prior research has shown that GHRM has a beneficial effect on JPI and organisational appeal, making it an important signalling mechanism within this framework (Jones et al., 2014; Choi et al., 2021; Renwick et al., 2013). As demonstrated by Chapman et al.’s (2005) meta-analysis on JPI, a variety of organisational characteristics, such as expected worth consistency, CSR focus and growth possibilities, have an impact on candidate appeal.
There exists ambiguity about how candidates understand the environmental component of CSR within GHRM, so additional study is required to determine its efficacy given the field’s scant and dispersed evidence, particularly across cultures (Renwick et al., 2013). Several inferences can be made considering the findings of earlier research. First, research shows that job seekers see employers who use green techniques as environmentally and socially conscious. They are drawn to these businesses because they also anticipate being treated well. Put differently, it may be demonstrated that the adoption of GHRM principles draws in job seekers, who then intend to work with such organisations.
As a result, these hypotheses can be created:
Potential job seekers’ JPI is influenced by their perceptions of GHRM.
OA is influenced by perceived GHRM.
The association between prospective job seekers’ JPI and their perceptions of GHRM practices is mediated by OA.
Distinct demographics may influence how prospective employees feel and act when selecting potential employment, and we include gender and education as moderators in the proposed framework to examine whether the impact of GHRM signalling differs across applicants’ categories. These moderators were chosen considering theoretical and empirical data, indicating that social identity, orientation towards values and knowledge retention capacity influence how people react to organisational cues. Thus, the function of gender and educational qualification as demographic variables in the connection between GHRM, JPI and OA is illustrated in the section that follows.
2.1 Gender as moderator
The most reliable justification for gender variations in sustainability is provided by the roles of gender and socialisation strategies (Zelezny et al., 2000). Gender expectations derived from social and cultural standards define gender roles. In a patriarchy-based Indian society, men are conditioned to be autonomous and competitive, while women are conditioned to be cooperative and dependent. Indian women are conditioned to respect and prioritise the needs of those around them above themselves. Such a concerned perspective ought to be displayed when taking responsibility for the natural world too, since socialisation shapes individual perspectives and behaviours. The proof of disparities between genders in people’s environmentally conscious views and actions may also be found in the academic field. Throughout every society, women are frequently found to be more concerned about their surroundings than men (Xiao and McCright, 2014; Chen et al., 2011).
Moreover, research has shown that compared to men, women are considerably more inclined to participate in environmentally conscious behaviours and demonstrate significant environmentally conscious principles, convictions and opinions (Zelezny et al., 2000; Xiao and Dunlap, 2007; Xiao and Hong, 2017). Conversely, it has been noted that males are more interested in the company's growth opportunities and financial initiatives (Brammer et al., 2007). Drawing from the aforementioned factors, we suggest that women will see GHRM-practising organisations as more prominent and exhibit a higher JPI towards them than men.
We therefore postulate the following hypothesis:
The association between GHRM and OA is moderated by gender.
Through OA, gender moderates the subsequent impact of GHRM on JPI.
2.2 Educational qualification as moderator
Concern for the environment varies from person to person. The initial studies concentrated on individual socioeconomic factors, including age, income, education and place of residence, to explain this difference. According to empirical research, people who live in cities, are female, younger, better educated and earn more money are generally more worried about environmental quality than other people (Van Liere and Dunlap, 1980; Hunter et al., 2004). According to earlier research, education helps people cultivate a perspective regarding the significance of the natural realm and its relationship to people, moreover improving their capacity to understand complex issues and their access to environmental information (Guber, 2003). Education is a key component in determining people’s pro-environmental views and their concern for environmental harm, according to Wong and Wan (2011), who also found that a mix of ideological, oneself and organisational variables influences concern for the environment. Many studies have considered educational qualification as a control variable in the relationship of GHRM, OA and JPI, but the use of it as a moderator has been very limited. We, therefore, postulate the following hypotheses.
The association between GHRM and OA is moderated by educational qualification.
Through OA, educational qualification moderates the subsequent impact of GHRM on JPI.
3. Research methodology
The study’s participants were final-year students enrolled in various courses in respectable technical institutes in India that are part of the Chandigarh Region Innovation and Knowledge Cluster (CRIKC). Serving a varied student body, CRIKC is a regional knowledge centre for research and teaching. The Government of India’s Science, Technology and Innovation Policy, 2013, also recognises the development of innovation clusters and hubs as important tools for promoting innovation. Final-year students are a good fit for this study's intent because (1) they make up a significant portion of job contenders who enter the workforce each year (Presley et al., 2018; Chaudhary, 2018; Jones et al., 2016); (2) organisations attract them with many job advertisements as potential staff members (Story et al., 2016; Renaud et al., 2016) and (3) they make up the population that businesses use to fill entry-level employment positions (Carballo-Penela et al., 2020; Presley et al., 2018). This aligns with prior investigations exploring how prospective applicants view companies enacting sustainable or green sustainable methods (e.g. Chaudhary, 2018, 2019a, 2021; Choi et al., 2021; Carballo-Penela et al., 2020; Degrassi, 2019; Story et al., 2018; Jones et al., 2016; Guerci et al., 2016; Duarte et al., 2014; Rupp et al., 2013; Gully et al., 2013; Behrend et al., 2009; Bauer and Aimansmith, 1996).
The experimental set was coded as “1”, which depicted a business implementing GHRM methods (green hiring and selection, green incentive and pay, green performance monitoring, green training and development and green engagement). In the alternative instance, the identical organisation was designated as “0”, allocated to the control group and given no details regarding GHRM policies. Respondents were divided into two sections. One section was exposed to a vignette of a fictitious company incorporating GHRM practices, while the other section received an identical vignette without GHRM information, serving as the control group. Participants were instructed to assume the role of active job seekers while evaluating the company. Following that, individuals were prompted to answer questions regarding their demographics, JPI and OA on the survey measure.
Measurement items were evaluated using a five-point Likert scale, with anchors ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The five-statement OA scale designed by Highhouse et al. (2003) was used. “A job at this company is very appealing to me” is an example of a statement. The JPI scale was created by Highhouse et al. (2003) and has five assertions. “I would accept a job offer from this company” is an example sentence. Investigations by Choi et al. (2021), Chaudhary (2021), Khan and Muktar (2020), Carballo-Penela et al. (2020), Bogan et al. (2020), Chaudhary (2019b), Chaudhary (2018) and Rupp et al. (2013) utilised the two OA and JPI measurements. The internal consistency of the questionnaire’s underpinning variables was examined. For every measure, Cronbach’s alpha is shown in Table 1.
Profile of the respondents
| Characteristics | Description | Amount | Percentage(%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 17–20 years | 124 | 55.35 |
| 21–25 years | 76 | 33.92 | |
| 26–30 years | 24 | 10.71 | |
| Type of institute | Public | 115 | 51.33 |
| Private | 109 | 48.66 | |
| Gender | Male | 111 | 49.55 |
| Female | 93 | 41.51 | |
| Qualification | Under graduation | 142 | 63.39 |
| Post-graduation | 82 | 36.60 |
To serve as moderator variables, demographic data were gathered. According to earlier research (Liu et al., 2021; Hameed et al., 2020; Chaudhary, 2019a, 2021; Story et al., 2016; Rupp et al., 2013), respondents’ educational qualification and gender were included as moderator variables since they have been shown to affect OA and JPI. To ensure ethical compliance, this study adhered to institutional research procedures. To ensure ethical compliance, the study adhered to institutional research procedures and obtained approval through consultation with the departmental heads of the participating technical institutes. Following this approval process, informed consent was obtained from all participants, and confidentiality and anonymity were assured throughout the study.
4. Results
4.1 Descriptive analysis
In total, 224 final-year students’ responses were obtained. Of those surveyed, as shown in Table 1, 55.35% were in the age group of 17–20 years, 33.92% were between 21 and 25 years of age and 10.71% were between 26 and 30 years of age, and 51.33% of students were from public institutions and 48.66% from private institutions. Males comprised 49.55% of the participants, and females comprised 41.51%. And 63.39% were undergraduate students, whereas 36.60% were in the final year of their post-graduation.
The conceptual framework, as shown in Figure 1, was run in partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS SEM) to ascertain the results. Table 2 shows the results of the reliability test. The model’s reliability was assessed and tested using SmartPLS. The descriptive statistics’ results include the mean, standard deviations, explained variance, Cronbach alpha for each construct and pairwise correlation of the model’s variable analysis. The results of the reliability analysis are summarised in Table 2. Before testing the hypotheses, coefficient alphas were calculated. An alpha value greater than 0.6 indicates reliability (Hair et al., 2019). The Cronbach α values for all constructs were above 0.6, demonstrating sufficient reliability and consistency in the data (refer to Table 2). Additionally, before evaluating the framework, convergent validity was assessed using average variance extracted (AVE) and composite reliability (CR) (Jenatabadi and Ismail, 2014). The values of AVE exceeded 0.4, and the CR values were above 0.7, surpassing the thresholds established by Jenatabadi and Ismail (2014). Reliability for all scales met or exceeded the minimally acceptable standards (Nunnally, 1978). The discriminant validity of the formative model was evaluated by examining the heterotrait-monotrait ratio (HTMT) of the correlations (Henseler et al., 2015). The HTMT ratio should not exceed 0.85. The results of this analysis are shown in Table 3, where all values are below 0.85, indicating that discriminant validity is confirmed.
The structural path diagram presents relationships among five constructs and their measured indicators, with directional arrows indicating structural links. The construct “G H R M” is positioned on the upper left. A rightward-pointing arrow from “G H R M” leads directly to “J P I”. A diagonal downward arrow from “G H R M” points to “O A”. Below “G H R M” on the left is the construct “Gender”. A dashed diagonal arrow from “Gender” points towards the diagonal path that leads to “O A”. Below “Gender” is the construct “Educational Qualification”. A dashed diagonal arrow from “Educational Qualification” also points towards the diagonal path that leads to “O A”. The construct “O A” is positioned at the center bottom. From “O A”, five downward arrows point to five rectangular indicators arranged horizontally and labeled from left to right as follows: “O A 1”, “O A 2”, “O A 3”, “O A 4”, and “O A 5”. The construct “J P I” is positioned on the upper right. From “J P I”, five rightward arrows point to five rectangular indicators arranged vertically and labeled from top to bottom as follows: “J P I 1”, “J P I 2”, “J P I 3”, “J P I 4”, and “J P I 5”.Conceptual framework
The structural path diagram presents relationships among five constructs and their measured indicators, with directional arrows indicating structural links. The construct “G H R M” is positioned on the upper left. A rightward-pointing arrow from “G H R M” leads directly to “J P I”. A diagonal downward arrow from “G H R M” points to “O A”. Below “G H R M” on the left is the construct “Gender”. A dashed diagonal arrow from “Gender” points towards the diagonal path that leads to “O A”. Below “Gender” is the construct “Educational Qualification”. A dashed diagonal arrow from “Educational Qualification” also points towards the diagonal path that leads to “O A”. The construct “O A” is positioned at the center bottom. From “O A”, five downward arrows point to five rectangular indicators arranged horizontally and labeled from left to right as follows: “O A 1”, “O A 2”, “O A 3”, “O A 4”, and “O A 5”. The construct “J P I” is positioned on the upper right. From “J P I”, five rightward arrows point to five rectangular indicators arranged vertically and labeled from top to bottom as follows: “J P I 1”, “J P I 2”, “J P I 3”, “J P I 4”, and “J P I 5”.Conceptual framework
Reliability and validity
| Cronbach’s alpha | Composite reliability (rho_a) | Composite reliability (rho_c) | Average variance extracted (AVE) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| JPI | 0.780 | 0.784 | 0.851 | 0.534 |
| OA | 0.766 | 0.832 | 0.847 | 0.547 |
Discriminant validity
| Educational qualification | GHRM | Gender | JPI | OA | Gender × GHRM | Educational qualification × GHRM | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Educational qualification | |||||||
| GHRM | 0.051 | ||||||
| Gender | 0.245 | 0.196 | |||||
| JPI | 0.186 | 0.131 | 0.142 | ||||
| OA | 0.064 | 0.091 | 0.116 | 0.948 | |||
| Gender × GHRM | 0.115 | 0.531 | 0.489 | 0.112 | 0.143 | ||
| Educational qualification × GHRM | 0.709 | 0.037 | 0.174 | 0.163 | 0.121 | 0.182 |
A manipulation check was conducted to determine whether the individuals assigned to various GHRM situations had different perceptions of the two hypothetical situations. The findings indicate that participants’ perceptions of OA and JPI varied significantly when they were randomly assigned to the two scenarios (Table 4). For every variable, correlations, means and standard deviations between the research variables were calculated as given in Table 5. The moderate range contained the mean values for both JPI and OA. Notable associations were found between JPI and GHRM. For instance, there was a substantial association of GHRM with OA (r = 0.187, p < 0.05) and JPI (r = 0.221, p < 0.05) in comparison to the control group. Concurrently, we verified that multicollinearity was not a problem by looking at the variance inflation factor (VIF) values. The VIF values for each variable were less than 5 (range 1.07–1.157), excluding any possibility of multicollinearity. As shown, there were notable variations in the students’ intentions to pursue jobs when they were given two manipulated dissimilar situations for GHRM.
Results of hypothesis
| Hypothesis | Original sample (O) | Sample mean (M) | Standard deviation (STDEV) | T Statistics (|O/STDEV|) | P Values | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| H1 | GHRM → JPI | 0.115 | 0.111 | 0.138 | 0.829 | 0.004* |
| H2 | GHRM → OA | 0.280 | 0.269 | 0.294 | 0.955 | 0.001* |
| H3 | GHRM → OA → JPI | 0.234 | 0.229 | 0.228 | 1.024 | 0.003* |
| H4 | Gender × GHRM → OA | 0.756 | 0.751 | 0.391 | 1.933 | 0.053 |
| H5 | Gender × GHRM → OA → JPI | 0.611 | 0.603 | 0.307 | 1.988 | 0.047 |
| H6 | Educational qualification × GHRM → OA | 0.147 | 0.143 | 0.225 | 0.654 | 0.513 |
| H7 | Educational qualification × GHRM → OA → JPI | 0.109 | 0.104 | 0.166 | 0.655 | 0.512 |
| Gender → OA | −0.531 | −0.535 | 0.282 | 1.886 | 0.059 | |
| Educational qualification → OA | −0.035 | −0.035 | 0.146 | 0.237 | 0.812 | |
| OA → JPI | 0.751 | 0.762 | 0.044 | 17.071 | 0.000 * |
Note(s): Level of significance at *p < 0.05, two-tailed
Correlation among study variables
| GHRM | OA | Gender | Educational qualification | JPI | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GHRM | 1.000 | ||||
| OA | 0.187* | 1.000 | |||
| Gender | 0.101 | 0.283 | 1.000 | ||
| Educational qualification | 0.000 | 0.180 | 0.363 | 1.000 | |
| JPI | 0.221* | 0.571* | 0.301 | 0.114 | 1.000 |
Note(s): *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed)
The results of the analysis (Table 4) show that while certain hypotheses are supported, others are not. There is a significant direct impact of GHRM on both OA and JPI (p = 0.001 and p = 0.004, respectively), which supports H1 and H2. Also, OA mediates the link between GHRM and JPI (p = 0.003) and has a significant favourable effect on JPI (p = 0.000), supporting H3. The moderating role of gender was found to be insignificant in the indirect relationships between GHRM and OA (p = 0.053) as well as among GHRM, OA and JPI (p = 0.047), thereby rejecting H4 and H5. Educational qualification neither moderates the relationships between GHRM, OA and JPI (p > 0.5) nor has a significant direct impact on OA (p = 0.812), which does not support H6 and H7. These results demonstrate the critical role that OA and GHRM play in improving JPI, as well as the complex influence of gender and educational qualification as a moderating factor.
5. Discussion
This article investigates how potential candidates’ JPIs are impacted by perceived GHRM practices. Final-year students at technical institutes in India that are part of the CRIKC served as the study’s participants. Like other research, the results demonstrate a substantial impact of perceived GHRM practices on potential applicants’ JPI (Khan and Muktar, 2020; Chaudhary, 2018, 2021). At the same time, numerous investigations (Tarigan et al., 2021; Choi et al., 2021; Carballo Penela et al., 2020; Moorthy et al., 2017; Sohn et al., 2015; Rupp et al., 2013) indicate that the ecological element of CSR is strongly associated with JPI because GHRM is considered a green component of CSR. Applicants are inclined to look for positions in organisations that prioritise environmental sustainability through GHRM procedures, guidelines and efforts. This improves the company’s image among people.
As a result, potential employees view these indications or notifications positively since they believe that businesses that value the surroundings also value their staff members. This increases candidates’ JPI by creating a desire to look for work in organisations like these. The present investigation supported the findings of previous studies (Khan and Muktar, 2020; Chaudhary, 2019a, 2021; Degrassi, 2019; Presley et al., 2018; Jones et al., 2016; Duarte et al., 2014) by confirming that OA mediates the association between GHRM and JPI. Employers that use GHRM principles attract potential recruits, who show that they intend to apply for jobs there. These results suggest that organisations that provide information about combining regular HRM tasks with environmental initiatives draw in more candidates than those that do not have these attributes.
These results, nevertheless, run counter to those put forth by Lis (2012), claiming an absence of connection between JPI and CSR’senvironmental aspect. One explanation for this could be that Lis (2012) surveyed German undergraduate students, where regulations about the environment are already in effect in German businesses. Because German businesses possess environmental policies, potential workers consider additional aspects while choosing their next job in addition to green practices. However, Indian businesses are still in the early stages of developing and establishing ecological policies, laws and regulations.
Contrary to predictions, there was no discernible impact of gender and educational qualifications on the degree to which GHRM and JPI are associated. This runs counter to other research that found that women are more interested in organisational initiatives that promote environmental sustainability (Zelezny et al., 2000). It is possible that the small sample size of females prevented the detection of gender-specific differences in the association of GHRM and JPI, which would account for this anomalous finding. Its importance may be demonstrated by examining gender effects across a sizeable sample.
6. Theoretical and practical contributions
Although the evidence indicates that graduates are often open to GHRM indicators, educational establishments possess a crucial role in influencing how graduates understand and assess environmental messaging when choosing a career. Educational programs should incorporate innovative courses that emphasise sustainable development education and CSR scepticism rather than only encouraging environmental knowledge in general. This can be accomplished by educating pupils to distinguish between meaningful environmental behaviours and symbolic CSR signalling using dual-process theories of cognition (Petty and Cacioppo, 1986). According to dual-process theory, candidates evaluate greenwashing indicators superficially while processing genuine sustainability information more thoroughly. This method enables students to steer clear of a greenwashed corporate image and make better-informed career choices.
The participants may be a coherent population concerning morals and environmental attitudes because most of them were final-year graduate students from Indian institutions of higher education. Previous research indicates that unique variations in environmental responsiveness can be reduced by age, educational level and shared academic contexts (Wray-Lake et al., 2010). Therefore, it’s possible that the suggested moderating variables lacked enough variation or discriminative strength within this specific sample.
Furthermore, from the perspective of message perception (Connelly et al., 2011), it’s possible that GHRM practices were viewed as similarly desirable and trustworthy across demographic segments, which would have lessened the moderating influence of education and gender. Job applicants may have assessed environmental policies according to their anticipated conformity with key organisational principles, rather than through the prism of their personal identities or educational background, in line with genuine research (Delmas and Burbano, 2011).
One could anticipate that women or people with higher levels of education would be more receptive to indicators that are focused on the environment, according to Tajfel and Turner’s (1986) SIT. The findings, however, imply that among fresher Indian generations, environmental beliefs might not be as academically segregated as thought earlier. This is consistent with recent studies that demonstrate that, irrespective of demographic categories, Gen Z and millennial candidates are generally conscious of sustainability (EY, 2023). These findings point to a crucial limit for further investigation: demographic moderators might be less predictive in cultures where environmental consciousness is pervasive and accepted. To gain a more comprehensive knowledge of when and for whom GHRM signalling is appropriate, further research could examine psychographic factors (such as environmental identification, perceived greenwashing or trust in company sustainability marketing).
7. Future aspects and limitations
There are certain limitations to the present investigation that open new research directions. Firstly, the cross-sectional nature of the research methodology limits the analysis of causal links between the factors being studied. Prospective scholars are therefore urged to conduct longitudinal studies to gain a better grasp of the possible statistical connection between the predicted and result elements. Second, an assortment of undergraduates from technical institutions in their final year from CRIKC is employed in the study. Thus, looking at examining a representative group of pupils representing different institutions or clusters could provide a more comprehensive viewpoint and make it possible to more effectively extrapolate the findings to the Indian context. To improve the generalisation of the study’s findings, it is also advised to repeat the model with a bigger sample size. Examining and contrasting the opinions of prospective applicants from both environmentally conscious and non-green institutions might also be helpful. This can offer further information about how environmental knowledge and consciousness influence people’s attitudes and behaviours when they apply for jobs in companies that use GHRM policies. To better comprehend and broaden our comprehension of the nuances of GHRM procedures adoption across different nations, future investigations might replicate the empirical model in other developing nations to evaluate the results.
Additionally, the investigation used an experimental research methodology, analysing how prospective employees responded to a made-up company. Future studies should look at the suggested framework among actual workers in the market and investigate how they respond to genuine businesses implementing sustainable methods. The current study also looked at how gender and educational qualification, as demographic variables, function as moderators. Future researchers should look at additional variations, like the types of personalities and the kind and duration of work experience, to gain further understanding of how GHRM procedures affect potential employees’ attitudes and behaviours.
We acknowledge that self-reported, single-source data may contain common method variance (CMV), even if the scenario-based design allowed for obvious manipulation of variables. Future research should consider time-lagged or multi-source strategies to better regulate CMV. Additionally, because our study examines latent components across control and treatment groups, measurement invariance is a critical topic. Due to sample and design limits, we could not explicitly examine it; consequently, we recommend that future studies adopt Partial Least Squares-Measurement Invariance (PLS-MI) or Multi-Group Confirmatory Factor Analysis (MG-CFA) to assure construct comparability. PLS-MI is used to determine whether measurement models perform similarly across different groups before conducting group comparisons. MG-CFA is a technique for testing measurement invariance and comparing factor structures between groups.
8. Conclusion
In conclusion, this study contributes to the accumulation of understanding regarding how GHRM procedures affect prospective employees’ intentions to work for these companies. The results add to our scant knowledge of GHRM procedures in India. Additionally, examining the mediating role of OA and the moderating condition of demographic variables expands our understanding of the fundamental mechanisms driving the relationship between GHRM and JPI. Concurrently, the research advances our comprehension of the conceptual foundations of person-environment fit, signalling and social identity theories in relation to GHRM. Moreover, it has useful ramifications for Indian professionals, companies and organisations of higher learning.
