Engaging HR managers with the sustainable development goals: toward common-good HRM

Amid the persistent challenges and uncertainties in addressing the economic, social, and environmental “grand challenges” of our era, the United Nations' “2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development” and its 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) have emerged as a vital framework for guiding businesses (United Nations, 2016). Human resource management (HRM) provides pivotal support to organizations in engaging with the SDGs by aligning workforce practices and strategies with sustainable development priorities. Already in the 1980s, Beer et al. (1984) emphasized the influence of internal and external stakeholders on HRM, as well as the impact of HRM on these stakeholders. However, in the following decades, research focused primarily on the impact of HRM on firms' financial performance (Bondarouk and Brewster, 2016). Furthermore, most modern sustainability-oriented HRM concepts – operationalized through research constructs such as socially responsible HRM, green HRM, and triple bottom line HRM – reflect an “inside-out” organizational perspective. This means that sustainability-oriented HRM activities are concerned with minimizing business risk and maximizing shareholder value. Recently, it has been stated that HRM practices should not serve only economic, environmental, and social purposes while focusing on the business itself (which is associated with the “inside-out” organizational perspective), but should shift to the common-good orientation (reflecting the “outside-in” perspective in the “focus on society and the sustainability challenges it is facing”) (Aust et al., 2020) (p. 2). The concept of “common-good HRM” promotes a multi-stakeholder and socio-ecological focus (Dutta et al., 2025), and seeks to explain how a business can leverage its resources, competencies, and experience in such a way that they are useful in addressing the major economic, social, or environmental challenges reflected in the SDGs (Ren et al., 2023).

As Aust et al. (2024) and Cooke (2025) argue, the field of common-good HRM is relatively new and underdeveloped, emphasizing the need for further research. Even though promising efforts have been made to conceptualize common-good HRM, we are still only beginning to understand this concept; empirical research is scarce and several fundamental questions remain unclear. In order to extend our knowledge about common-good HRM and operationalize it as a research construct, there is a need to determine which HRM practices are considered the most important in terms of addressing the global sustainability challenges we face. Therefore, the first research question which this study aims to answer is: What are the key common-good HRM practices? We also still know little about the antecedents and outcomes of common-good HRM. Therefore, this study also aims to answer further questions: What enhances the implementation of common-good HRM? What are the products of the implementation of common-good HRM?

Given the fundamental and complex nature of these questions – and the limited empirical research available to address them – an exploratory, qualitative empirical approach is well-suited (Frisch and Huppenbauer, 2014). Qualitative research methods can advance understanding in HRM by incorporating innovative technologies, enhancing the validity of existing methods, and providing new perspectives (Lochmiller et al., 2023). They can offer rich, detailed insights into human behaviors and organizational dynamics (Townsend et al., 2016). The main goal of this study, therefore, is to qualitatively investigate common-good HRM in order to deepen our understanding of the concept and to build a foundation for further conceptualization and quantitative research.

The next section of the paper presents an overview of the existing conceptualization and research on common-good HRM and illustrates the importance of the research questions mentioned above. In the sections following the literature review, the author presents a qualitative, interview-based study involving 11 HRM managers, proposes several enhancements to the common-good HRM concept, and suggests directions for future research.

The concept of the common good is defined differently by various authors, depending on their academic discipline. In political discourse, “the common good” refers to certain interests that all citizens share (Waheed and Kohn, 2024). The concept of the economy for the common good promotes an alternative economic model that identifies the common good as the main purpose of all economic activity. Monetary profits are seen as a mere means; the common good requires that everyone's welfare is addressed (Mazzucato, 2024). In management science, Hollensbe et al. (2014) stated that the common good aims to promote the good of society as a whole. In the HRM literature, the common good perspective highlights a business's contribution to solving grand sustainability-related problems, serving employees, local and global communities, and the natural environment (Aust et al., 2024). Common-good HRM emerged in 2020 in a publication by Aust et al. (2020). The next paragraphs outline how HRM has evolved toward the common-good perspective.

When describing sustainability-oriented HRM concepts, HRM scholars refer to strategic management, emphasizing that strategic management stands in contrast to sustainability-oriented HRM approaches (e.g. (Aust et al.., 2020; Kramar, 2022; Cooke, 2025)). Strategic HRM emerged more than 40 years ago and emphasized how HRM can contribute to a company's financial performance (Kramar, 2022). Kaufman (2015) argue that two pioneering books published in 1984 launched the field of strategic HRM: thee first, presenting Michigan model of HRM by Fombrun et al. (1984), and the second introducing Harvard model of HRM by Beer et al. (1984). The Michigan model, representing the “hard” approach to HRM, highlights strong strategic control and links HRM activities directly to the firm's economic outcomes (Aust et al., 2020). Within this framework, HRM practices such as recruitment, performance evaluation, compensation, and employee development are viewed as tools for enhancing shareholder value, which is regarded as the organization's primary objective (Fombrun et al., 1984). Although in their Harvard model of HRM, Beer et al. (1984) positioned HRM within a broader context that includes individual and societal well-being, the emphasis on narrowly focused, conventional research demanded by so-called “A” journals has hindered HRM from advancing a systems-oriented perspective (Beer et al., 2015). Most businesses operating that time treated stakeholders (including employees) merely as instruments for generating business profits (Beer et al., 2015; Hollensbe et al., 2014; Paauwe and Boon, 2009). Even today, most companies still follow the shareholder value model, defining performance using financial indicators and implementing HRM systems to satisfy shareholders' needs (Poon and Law, 2020). This leads to a crisis of trust in the business, which can impact the company's long-term success (Hollensbe et al., 2014). Furthermore, as Cooke (2025) noted, numerous scholars beyond Beer et al. (1984) recognized the presence of multiple stakeholders; however, limited attention was given to their implications for HRM. In contrast, recent research on sustainability-oriented HRM reflects a renewed shift toward a pluralistic perspective that acknowledges the interests of a broader range of stakeholders. Literature on sustainability-oriented HRM includes socially responsible HRM, green HRM, triple bottom line HRM and the emerging concept, i.e. common-good HRM (Austen and Piwowar-Sulej, 2025), as discussed below.

By the late 20th century, HRM began incorporating corporate social responsibility (CSR) principles, which highlighted the importance of ethical behavior, equitable employee treatment, and socially responsible practices (Bansal and Song, 2017). This evolution gave rise to the concept of socially responsible HRM, which can be defined as “the long-term socially and economically efficient recruitment, development, retainment, and disemployment of employees” (Austen and Piwowar-Sulej, 2025, p. 230). Socially responsible HRM, often referred to as employee-centered HRM (Ahmad Giran et al., 2025), highlights employee well-being, diversity, fairness and inclusion as key components of an organization's ethical responsibilities (Shen and Zhang, 2019). As environmental issues gained prominence, green HRM emerged as a specialized approach that integrates environmental considerations into HRM practices. Green HRM promotes environmental sustainability through initiatives such as green recruitment, environmental training, and energy-saving programs, aiming to reduce the ecological impact of organizational activities (Piwowar-Sulej et al., 2023). Green HRM serves two purposes: economic and environmental. However, the environmental dimension is sustained only insofar as it supports the economic purpose, similar to the case of socially responsible HRM (Austen and Piwowar-Sulej, 2025). A broader perspective on sustainability within HRM practices led to the development of sustainable HRM being associated with triple bottom line HRM, which encompasses HRM practices that generate positive environmental and social outcomes, while being explicitly aimed at achieving economic results in both the short and long term (Kramar, 2022).

The focus of all the above-mentioned HRM concepts remains primarily “inside-out” (Aust et al., 2024). This means that while social and environmental considerations are included, the overarching aim is often to secure long-term economic sustainability, with shareholders taking priority (Järlström et al., 2024). The company's shareholder value is being maximized by enhancing its public image (Ahmad Giran et al., 2025). Furthermore, institutional pressure (particularly coercive pressure) often drives organizations to adopt more ethical, socially responsible, and environmentally friendly HRM practices in order to avoid penalties (Aust et al., 2024), which also reflects the “inside-out” organizational perspective.

Common-good HRM has been introduced as a more holistic and transformative model. Unlike previous approaches, it shifts the focus beyond the triple bottom line to prioritize broader ecological and societal challenges, such as combating climate change, unemployment, poverty, and inequality (Aust et al.., 2020; Lu et al., 2023). This model corresponds with the concept of a purpose-driven business which has strong core values accepted by the society and which aims to create a better life (Hollensbe et al., 2014). The values of solidarity, reciprocity, dignity, subsidiarity, plurality, and environmental sustainability should be embedded in the corporate culture because they place collective well-being at the forefront (Hollensbe et al., 2014). By adopting an “outside-in” perspective, HRM is reoriented to focus on external stakeholders and societal goals, distinguishing it from traditional “inside-out” approaches (Matthews and Muller-Camen, 2025). As Cooke (2025) stated, common-good HRM is collective-, relational-, and process-oriented, prioritizing society and grand sustainability challenges. Most conceptual works discuss the general concept of common-good HRM. There is, however, a paper by Taylor and Earl (2023) in which the authors propose four principles of common-good HRM oriented toward age management: fairness, equality, outward orientation, and multi-stakeholder involvement.

Considering past qualitative empirical studies, Järlström et al. (2024) analyzed common-good HRM practices demonstrated by companies in the sustainability reports. They determined that practices such as HR development, diversity and inclusion, employee participation, and care for employees' well-being contribute the most to organizational sustainable performance. However, the authors pointed out that these practices reflect socially responsible HRM rather than common-good HRM because of their focus on the needs of internal company stakeholders (employees). In the remaining qualitative studies, Dobbins and Prowse (2024) and Geradine and McWha-Hermann (2024) explored decent working conditions for employees. Although decent work is one of the SDGs, the organizational practices aimed at creating decent work primarily reflect socially responsible HRM because of their focus on the employees' needs. Finally, Dutta et al. (2025) characterized the sources of changes in recruitment practices, concluding that talent acquisition practices have adapted to these changes, for example, by placing greater emphasis on the candidate's experience, thereby demonstrating an “outside-in” organizational perspective.

The recent understanding of common-good HRM is reflected in the detailed items used in measurement scales to evaluate the degree to which the concept has been implemented. However, only a very limited number of studies have employed a quantitative research approach. Brunetto et al. (2023), Lu et al. (2023), and Lu et al. (2025) referred to the statement by Aust et al. (2020) that common-good HRM emphasizes “security, safety, and meaningful work”. They assumed that common-good HRM is based on four principles: HRM practices should be SDGs-oriented, employees should be equally and fairly treated, work democracy should be used, and a psychological contract should be maintained. They examined the effects of common-good HRM practices, though the practices selected by the authors focus on the needs of internal company stakeholders (e.g. employee well-being), which allows us to assign the practices to socially responsible HRM.

Li et al. (2023) did not present the scale they used. In turn, Pham et al. (2023) developed and validated a common-good HRM scale which consists of only four items: fair salaries, safety at work, equality and security in employment, and employee participation and meaningful work. As in the case of Brunetto et al. (2023), Lu et al. (2023), and Lu et al. (2025), the items are associated with the needs of employees and do not significantly differ from items used for measurement of socially responsible HRM (see, e.g. (Barrena-Martinez et al., 2019)). Given the above-presented scarcity of clearly defined common-good HRM practices and the calls for further operationalization of the common-good HRM construct (Cooke, 2025), the following can be concluded:

In his recent conceptual paper, Cooke (2025) formulated an open question: Where is the pressure and benefits for companies to adopt common-good HRM? As presented above, common-good HRM differs from other sustainability-oriented HRM concepts, which typically emphasize aligning organizational goals with institutional pressures for greater social and environmental responsibility and are often focused on mitigating the company's negative impact on the social and natural environment (Aust et al., 2020). Instead of focusing on the company's financial goals, the main purpose of common-good HRM is to support business leaders and employees in their contribution to the fulfillment of SDGs worldwide (Aust et al., 2020). These considerations lead to the assumption that factors other than pressure from shareholders and policymakers should be the main driving forces of implementing common-good HRM. However, Li et al. (2023) identified institutional pressures as an antecedent of common-good HRM. In turn, Dutta et al. (2025) stated that broadly defined external context and employee preferences should shape common-good HRM practices, which demonstrates the “outside-in” organizational perspective.

As far as the consequences of companies implementing common-good HRM are concerned, Järlström et al. (2024) use an organizational-level variable in the form of organizational sustainable performance (which covers economic, environmental, and social performance). Pham et al. (2023) found a positive impact of common-good HRM on the employee-related outcomes coming from employees' ethical behaviors and extra-role helping behaviors toward coworkers via value commitment. Li et al. (2023) found that organizational support (organizational activity assessed from the employees' perspective) is an outcome of common-good HRM, whereas in research by Brunetto et al. (2023), this support was treated as a common-good HRM practice. The outcomes of a lack of support identified by Brunetto et al. (2023) are stress and demotivation to work (employee-related variables, with stress being treated as a mediator between lack of support and demotivation). In the study by Li et al. (2023), organizational support mediated the relationship between common-good HRM and employee involvement in sustainability. Lu et al. (2023) stated that although common-good HRM should focus on grand sustainability challenges, it is worth examining its impact on employees' positive psychological states and performance. Consequently, they provided evidence that employee resilience, which led to work engagement and subsequent job performance, are the outcomes of HRM practices. Similarly, Lu et al. (2025) demonstrated that common-good HRM contributes to employees' perceived meaningfulness of work, which stimulates employee thriving and subsequent innovative behavior.

The above findings highlight the fact that little research has addressed the driving forces and results of the implementation of common-good HRM. There are gaps related to the effects of common-good HRM on stakeholders other than employees and organizational performance. Moreover, there are inconsistencies in approaching both the antecedents and consequences of common-good HRM. At this point, it should be pointed out once again that most of the above-presented articles – although they mention common-good HRM – were rather focused on socially responsible HRM, which emphasizes the needs of internal company stakeholders (employees) rather than the good of society. Therefore, the author concluded as follows:

Every scientific study requires standard research activities to ensure that the assumptions are properly verified and highly reliable results are achieved. Accordingly, it is essential to adopt a specific research procedure in line with the methodological literature. This entails that the researcher must follow the stages of the research process carefully to maintain the logical continuity and coherence of outcomes.

This research was conducted in Poland. According to United Nations data, Poland ranks highly in the global implementation of SDGs, securing ninth place among the 166 countries in the ranking (Polish Economic Institute, 2024). Since HR managers are the ones who operationalize the theoretical HRM concept, being responsible for designing, implementing, and overseeing HRM policies and practices, 21 HR managers were contacted via LinkedIn with an invitation to participate in this research. To ensure their awareness of the SDGs, the author focused on individuals working in large companies which openly communicate their engagement in business ethics/CSR/sustainability issues. Eleven managers agreed to participate (10 women and 1 man – all of them with master's degrees, at an average age of 35 years). All participants worked in companies operating in the market for more than 10 years. The sectors included manufacturing (five companies), financial services (three companies), IT (two companies), and construction (one company).

Investigating ethics/CSR/sustainability-related topics is particularly susceptible to social desirability bias, requiring careful attention during data collection (Bergen and Labonté, 2020). To mitigate this bias, several strategies recommended by Öberseder et al. (2011) were employed. Face-to-face interviews were chosen over focus groups to minimize self-presentation concerns and reduce the pressure on participants to “say the right thing”. Following an interview guide, the author carried out face-to-face semi-structured interviews, where the participants were encouraged to share their opinions and experiences. The interviews lasted about one hour and were held online (via MS Teams or Zoom). With the participants' consent, the interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed after they were fully informed about the study and assured that their personal or company details would not be disclosed without prior consent. At the beginning of each interview, the author provided respondents with the definition of common-good HRM and explained the “outside-in” business approach. In addition to gathering personal, biographical, and company-specific information, the respondents adhered to the research questions by exploring the relevant HRM practices and the antecedents and outcomes of common-good HRM. They were ensured that there were no correct or incorrect answers to the questions.

The fundamental process of analyzing qualitative data involves assigning codes to the data, grouping these codes into broader categories and themes, and then interpreting the findings (Creswell and Tashakkori, 2007). The author selected qualitative content analysis, a research approach for describing and interpreting textual data using the systematic process of coding (Hsieh and Shannon, 2005). As Assarroudi et al. (2018) stated, “the final result of data analysis is the identification of categories, themes and patterns” (p. 42). Inductive qualitative content analysis is the most popular approach, which helps with the development of theories, schematic models, or conceptual frameworks (Vaismoradi et al., 2016); it was therefore used in this study.

The author first identified the main categories (e.g. key HRM practices) based on the research questions. After reviewing the transcripts for relevant excerpts, the author assigned them to these categories, paraphrased each distinct statement, and applied appropriate codes (e.g. “partnering with educational institutions”). Statements with similar meanings but different wording were assigned the same code. In the next step, the author grouped the codes into deductively generated subcategories (e.g. the codes “ethical values” and “spiritual values” were categorized under “culture”). In cases where only a few codes were assigned to a main category, the author omitted this second step (Kleinheksel et al., 2020). To aid the analysis, the author utilized Qualitative Research Data Analysis, an AI-based program which uses the programming language Python and is designed for the qualitative analysis of textual datasets (generating codes and themes).

Regarding the sample size, the author adhered to the established method of Glaser and Strauss (1967), concluding the sampling once “theoretical saturation” was achieved. Following one of the accepted methods for determining the sample size for saturation, the author reviewed an initial sample of interviews to identify new codes and used a predetermined stopping criterion, which is usually the number of consecutive interviews after the initial sample in which no new codes are identified or the number of new codes is under a predetermined threshold (Hennink and Kaiser, 2022). Since typical interviews involve between 10 and 15 respondents (Kvale and Svend, 2014), an initial sample of 10 interviews was analyzed for this study; the stopping criterion was set to two interviews and new codes amounting to less than 2.5% of the previous number of codes. Then the author added transcripts of new interviews one by one, repeating the analysis. Since interview numbers 12 and 13 contributed only one new code each to the existing total of 69 codes (1.45%, which is less than 2.5%), the author decided that theoretical saturation had been achieved with 11 interviews, which justified stopping the data collection (Rahimi and Khatooni, 2024).

The findings are presented in Tables 1–3. The analysis resulted in a total of 69 codes, 17 subcategories, and five main categories. The numbers in parentheses following the codes indicate their frequency. The figure before the slash denotes the total instances the code appeared across all data, while the figure after the slash specifies the number of interviews in which the code was mentioned. Following the recommendation by Frisch and Huppenbauer (2014), codes that were mentioned by only one respondent were not included in the tables. In Table 1, the author added the SDGs most associated with a given HRM practice. Furthermore, to provide some depth to the findings, the author incorporated selected original quotes from the interviews, which were then translated from Polish into English and condensed for brevity, where necessary.

Considering key common-good HRM practices (Table 1), the respondents clearly indicated that companies need to take care of their employees so that they can continue working for the common good. This encompasses aspects such as providing continuous learning opportunities (Subcategory: Developing HR potential) and meaningful work (Subcategory: Work Assignment), creating inclusive workplace cultures that support underrepresented groups (Subcategory: Promoting diversity and inclusion), offering health and wellness programs (Subcategory: Fostering employee well-being), ensuring fair wages (Subcategory: decent work), and actively listening to employees (Subcategory: Enabling employees' activism). However, some of the practices are no longer directed solely toward employees, as in the case of traditional HRM concepts. HR departments must take the initiative, for example, by offering training programs at educational institutions and building the competencies of clients and business partners. This was reflected in the following statements:

As far as antecedents of common-good HRM are concerned (Table 2), respondents – being aware of the definition of common-good HRM and the “outside-in” perspective” – emphasized factors that are not connected to the institutional or business pressure to make a profit. They clearly stated that social pressure is important.

Employees also pushed companies to act on issues that matter to them, such as helping Ukrainian refugees in Poland or helping victims of flooding in September 2024. Employers need to pay greater attention to the will of their employees in order to retain talent and contribute to the common good:

However, the respondents also indicated that it is hard to observe an “outside-in” perspective in the current business practice and that the shift toward it requires cultural changes and modeling from leaders. Below are some examples of statements that support this argument.

The outcomes of common-good HRM (Table 3) are truly numerous and multidimensional. They are categorized into organizational, employee-related, and external stakeholder-related consequences. Here are some examples of organizational outcomes:

The respondents also claimed that the outcomes achieved through the implementation of common-good HRM should not be measured solely from the perspective of employees and the organization; external stakeholders should be included in the evaluation process. The “Quality of collaboration” subcategory reflects strong relationships with external stakeholders, whereas “Impact” (Table 3) highlights the broader effects on external stakeholders. Here is a quote to support this aspect:

Interestingly, the interviewees pointed out that implementing common-good HRM not only strengthens the reputation of the company itself but also enhance the image of external stakeholders:

As highlighted in this study, the concept of common-good HRM remains in its nascent stages of development. The number of studies explicitly addressing this topic is currently limited. Common-good HRM relies mostly on the theoretical articles by Aust et al. (2020, 2024). Discussions about this concept are often situated within broader sustainability and HRM frameworks (e.g. Austen and Piwowar-Sulej, 2025; Cooke, 2025), rather than being treated as a fully established, standalone concept. There is a notable lack of empirical research in this area. As this study shows, in most cases, common-good HRM has been measured by the use of practices related to socially responsible HRM. Previous studies have argued that the antecedents of common-good HRM reflect the “inside-out” rather than the “outside-in” perspective, which stands in contradiction to the core meaning of the concept today. The literature has also demonstrated mainly the employee-related outcomes of common-good HRM (e.g. well-being) and organizational outcomes (i.e. performance). The literature overview highlighted the need to recognize key practices of common-good HRM and for the list of antecedents and outcomes to reflect the basic assumptions of the concept. The following discussion interprets the research findings.

The first purpose of this article was to identify common-good HRM practices. Building on this aim, the study relates its findings to the Harvard model of HRM and earlier sustainability-oriented HRM concepts. In their Harvard model of HRM, which is a theoretical framework presenting a collection of elements and relationships between them, Beer et al. (1984) proposed some general HRM policies related to employee influence, human resource flow, reward systems, and work design, which were intended to build employee's commitment, competence, development and coherence, thus generating positive long-term outcomes for both business and society. The model has been criticized for its lack of clarity regarding the identification of the HRM system (Javed, 2019) since it considered employee influence as a central aspect of the HRM policy choices, influencing all other policy areas (Beer et al., 2015). Furthermore, the analyzed model has put strong emphasis on the cost-effective HRM policies and practices (Beer et al., 2015). In turn, the literature on the sustainability-oriented HRM has emphasized HRM practices directed toward current and potential employees as a means of building sustainable societies, since employees are integral members of those societies (Cooke et al., 2022). These practices are shown in measurement scales used for identification of the implementation level of green HRM (e.g. (Ojo et al., 2022)), socially responsible HRM (e.g. (Barrena-Martinez et al., 2019)) and sustainable HRM (e.g. (Jerónimo et al., 2020)). This study extends the role of HRM. It found that common-good HRM uses two types of practices: (1) directed toward employees and (2) directed toward different external stakeholders (beyond potential employees). They reflect the common-good values presented by Hollensbe et al. (2014).

To address the question of how a business can “leverage its resources, competencies, and experiences in such a way that they are useful in addressing the major challenges of our times” (Aust et al., 2020), HR departments may use activities that directly correspond with some SDGs, such as the “Promoting diversity and inclusion” subcategory in Table 1 (contributing to SDG 5: achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls), offering mental health support (see: “Fostering employee well-being” subcategory in Table 1) impacting SDG 3 (good health and well-being) or providing job security (see: “Offering decent work” subcategory) contributing to SDG8: decent work and economic growth). They may also encourage employees to engage in sustainability-oriented initiatives, for example, through implementing performance measures that reflect employee involvement in addressing societal and environmental challenges (see: the “Work assignment” subcategory in Table 1). Employee volunteering as one of the detailed practices under the “Enabling employees' activism” subcategory (Table 1) may contribute to different SDGs (e.g. volunteering at local food banks or providing support to people in difficult financial situations contributes to SDG1: no poverty). Similarly, employee participation and empowerment included in the “Enabling employees' activism” subcategory (Table 1) may support SDG8: decent work and economic growth (when cover decisions related to shaping working conditions) or SDG13: climate action (when employees take part in decision-making on workplace environmental sustainability initiatives). However, these types of HRM practices have been shown in studies on socially responsible and green HRM as they directly pertain to the companies' own employees. Lu et al. (2023) stated that SDGs such as SDG 3 (good health and wellbeing), SDG 5 (gender equality), SDG 8 (decent work and economic growth), SDG 10 (reduced inequalities), and SDG 12 (responsible consumption and production) are directly relevant to HRM. This study enriched this statement by showing that SDG 4 (quality education) also corresponds with common-good HRM practices. To be truly common-good-oriented, HR departments should use their abilities to influence society at large (Aust et al., 2020). As the current empirical data show, companies have the potential not only to educate their own employees (as emphasized in other sustainability-oriented HRM concepts) but also individuals outside the organization, such as members of the local community and business partners. They may also create educational programs in cooperation with universities, thus contributing to the personal and professional development of society (see: the “Developing HR potential” subcategory in Table 1). This last point has been emphasized in the sustainable human resource development concept of Piwowar-Sulej (2021), though the author focused on the traditional “inside-out” HRM approach.

Although initial efforts have been made to develop measurement scales for common-good HRM (Brunetto et al., 2023; Pham et al., 2023), the items used in these scales do not significantly differ from those used for measurement of socially responsible HRM (see, e.g. (Barrena-Martinez et al., 2019)). This study demonstrates potential dimensions (subcategories) and items (codes) that could be used to develop and validate a common-good HRM measurement scale, extending beyond the statements employed in the existing employee-centered socially responsible HRM measures. It can be treated as a first step in the scale's development. Although Table 1 shows which items are the most popular, thus reflecting common-good HRM the most, future studies may introduce experts and use a “sum-score” decision rule (Hardesty and Bearden, 2004) to prepare the final list of items for factor analysis. It would then be possible to compare the implementation of common-good HRM across industries and sectors to determine whether certain sectors are more naturally aligned with its principles.

At this point it should be pointed out that this study provides the set of practices that reflect social needs and trends observed by Polish HR professionals. For example, when discussing decent working conditions, the interviewed HR managers primarily focused on their companies' internal policies (see: the “Offering decent work” subcategory in Table 1). Aust et al. (2020) suggested that within common-good HRM, companies could even financially support suppliers in improving working conditions. The limited consideration of the supply chain by interviewees may be due to factors such as limited resources, low awareness of upstream social issues, or the perception that responsibility for suppliers lies primarily with procurement departments rather than HR.

Beyond working conditions, another important subcategory of common-good HRM practices is “Employee activism” (Table 1). Recent events that impacted Poland, such as war in Ukraine and severe flooding, have elevated these crises to the level of prominent sustainability challenges. In this context, employee activism emerged as a key subcategory of common-good HRM practices, giving employees the right to have a voice and act collectively. This reflects the common-good value of value of subsidiarity (Hollensbe et al., 2014). In their literature review, Jeseviciute-Ufartiene and Yasin (2024) stated that although socially responsible HRM focuses on employees, employee voice is rarely explored by researchers. The current study demonstrates specific forms of expression of employee voice, such as bottom-up communication, participation, and resource groups. The interviewees highlighted resource groups that are voluntary, employee-run networks built by employees who share common interests, backgrounds, or characteristics. Although they are promoted on business portals and by consulting companies (Catalino et al., 2023), they represent a fairly unexplored area of research (Welbourne et al., 2017).

When implementing common-good HRM, companies must place collective interests at the same level or higher than that of individual interests (including the organization's), by encouraging employees to resolve any differences, improve the conditions and status of their environment and local communities, and promote social progress worldwide (Aust et al., 2020). This is associated with the “outside-in” perspective. Past literature emphasized stakeholders' pressure as a strong antecedent of “inside-out” sustainability-oriented HRM concepts (Austen and Piwowar-Sulej, 2025). Similarly, this study identified social pressure (Table 2), encompassing the expectations of younger generations, employees, customers, and the local community, which makes some antecedents of common-good HRM similar to those of other sustainability-oriented concepts. However, the driving forces of common-good HRM should be different than institutional pressure and the willingness of leaders to make profits, both typical for the “inside-out” perspective. Surprisingly, although changes in legal regulations motivate “inside-out”-oriented companies to implement sustainability-focused actions (Aust et al., 2024), they have been shown in the literature as facilitators of common-good HRM (Li et al., 2023). As indicated by the interviewees, regulatory support (Table 2) – rather than regulatory pressure – should characterize common-good HRM, which distinguishes this concept from other sustainability-oriented HRM approaches.

Furthermore, as this study shows, cultural change will facilitate the implementation of the analyzed HRM concept. Ethical values play a foundational role in shaping practices oriented toward the common good (Abdelnour-Nocera, 2022). HRM grounded in ethics encourages fair treatment of employees, transparency in recruitment and promotion, and equitable reward systems (Olanipekun and Jayeoba, 2022). They also guide interactions with external stakeholders, ensuring community engagement align with principles of fairness and integrity. Spiritual values in the workplace emphasize respect, purpose, and connectedness. They may encourage HRM practices that foster employee well-being, meaning in work, and social responsibility (Dubey and Bedi, 2024). Christian values – such as solidarity, compassion, and stewardship – also play a significant role in shaping HRM for the common good in the Polish context, where Christianity has historically influenced societal norms (Zrinščak, 2018). For instance, Christian values might inspire companies to engage in community projects aimed at poverty reduction and education. At this point, it should be emphasized that religion has not been identified as an antecedent of other sustainability-oriented HRM concepts (see: Austen and Piwowar-Sulej, 2025).

Finally, as in all cases of implementing changes in business, role models are needed (Nowiński and Haddoud, 2019). This study extends previous literature on HRM actors by showing that not only business leaders (including line managers) play a crucial role in shaping HRM practices (Beer et al., 2015), but celebrities can also have a significant influence. It is important to note that the role of celebrities is absent as a driving factor considered in research on the implementation of other sustainability-oriented HRM concepts (Austen and Piwowar-Sulej, 2025). Future research may draw from this study when creating the cause-effect research frameworks. It would be worth not only investigating the factors that motivate organizations to adopt an “outside-in” perspective, prioritizing collective interests over individual or organizational gains, but also comparing the roles of intrinsic motivations (e.g. ethical values) versus extrinsic motivations (e.g. social or cultural pressure) when adopting common-good HRM practices. Since culture (with an example of Christian values) has been listed as one of the possible antecedents of common-good HRM, future research may explore the impact of cultural differences on the adoption of this concept across regions or countries.

At this point, it is worth once again mentioning that the way HRM is understood and the stakeholders it is intended to address are strongly influenced by geographic location (Beer et al., 2015). Although, in their Harvard model of HRM, Beer et al. (1984) included unions, and the role of unions in the implementation of other sustainability-oriented concepts has been explored (Austen and Piwowar-Sulej, 2025), union pressure has not been identified as an antecedent of common-good HRM in the current study. In Poland, trade unions primarily exist to represent employees' interests in conflict situations or when employers fail to meet basic obligations. Their formation often responds to insufficient attention to workers' rights and conditions, such as lack of safety, low wages, or limited career development opportunities. This states in contradiction to the basic assumptions of common-good HRM.

Although in the Harvard model of HRM (Beer et al., 1984), long-term consequences for employee well-being, organizational effectiveness and societal well-being have been presented, the overview of existing empirical research on common-good HRM demonstrated mainly employee-related outcomes of common-good HRM (e.g. employee resilience (Lu et al., 2023)) and organizational outcomes (i.e. performance (Järlström et al., 2024)). Similarly, previous research has primarily demonstrated individual and organizational outcomes of other sustainability-oriented HRM concepts (Austen and Piwowar-Sulej, 2025). Some of the potential outcomes identified for common-good HRM – such as employee in-role and extra-role behaviors, and business profit – overlap with those associated with other sustainability-oriented HRM concepts (see: Austen and Piwowar-Sulej, 2025). The respondents in this study, however, indicated a broader and more detailed range of potential outcomes of common-good HRM. For instance, future research could examine specific consequences such as time-to-hire metrics or favorable coverage in official media. Importantly, while the “inside-out” perspective emphasizes building a positive company image primarily to generate profits (Aust et al., 2020), this study shows that common-good HRM goes further by creating reputational spillovers – external stakeholders also benefit from being associated with a company perceived as aligned with the SDGs.

Interestingly, while interviewees acknowledged certain challenges in implementing the concept, their focus remained exclusively on its positive impacts. However, as Li et al. (2023) pointed out, emerging HRM concepts may sometimes be met with resistance from employees. This resistance can stem from a fear of novelty – a psychological or emotional aversion to new ideas, changes, or unfamiliar experiences. Additionally, the broader range of objectives inherent in common-good HRM could dilute employee focus and potentially hinder performance.

This study also highlights the importance of evaluating common-good HRM outcomes from the perspective of external stakeholders, in addition to organizational and employee viewpoints. As Beer et al. (2015) acknowledged, the Harvard model of HRM (Beer et al., 1984) overlooked the important role of customers, both as an influencing factor and as key stakeholders. The literature review on sustainable HRM by Gomes et al., (2025) identified customer satisfaction as a consequence of HRM implementation; however, this variable is often categorized alongside organizational outcomes such as productivity and reduced turnover. In contrast, the interviewees in this study emphasized that metrics such as business partner loyalty and stakeholder well-being (including that of customers) should be determined directly by those stakeholders rather than being inferred by the organization. Similarly, employability has been placed among employee-related outcomes of sustainable HRM in past studies (Gomes et al., 2025). In this study, employability was widely recognized as a community-related outcome which addresses one of the grand sustainability challenges: unemployment (as indicated by Aust et al. (2020)). The above suggests a need for more inclusive and stakeholder-centered evaluation methods. However, it also brings some problems. Without a universally accepted framework or standardized measurement tools, responses from stakeholders may lack consistency, making it difficult to compare or aggregate data across different stakeholders or contexts. Future studies are also enhanced to investigate innovative tools and techniques (e.g. participatory surveys, digital platforms, or AI-driven sentiment analysis) to gather and analyze stakeholder feedback effectively.

This study addresses the understanding of the emerging common-good HRM concept among practitioners. It presents previous works about common-good HRM and provides a critical analysis of some of them, increasing awareness among practitioners that more than common-good HRM practices may be presented under the label of common-good HRM. It highlights the need for organizations to shift from a traditional “inside-out” approach to an “outside-in” perspective in order to implement common-good HRM effectively. This involves prioritizing collective interests – addressing societal challenges and fostering social progress – on par with or above organizational and individual goals. This study demonstrates a set of common-good HRM practices that can be used by HR practitioners to resolve societal disparities, improve community conditions, and align with global priorities like the UN's SDGs.

Leadership must play a pivotal role in instituting common-good HRM principles. Business must understand that it is a part of society and not apart from society (Hollensbe et al., 2014). Business leaders should act as role models, demonstrating a commitment to collective interests. Since shifting from regulatory pressure to regulatory support is essential for fostering sustainability-oriented HRM practices, governments and policymakers should develop frameworks that incentivize responsible behavior without imposing excessive compliance burdens. Engaging business leaders in small, tangible successes can help build commitment and reduce skepticism. Kramar (2022) recommended action learning – which covers the spiral of planning, acting, identifying results, and learning about the actions through critical reflection – as the best way to reframe the organization's purpose. Moreover, as the current study shows, influential public figures, such as celebrities, can play a key role in amplifying the visibility and importance of common-good HRM, thereby inspiring broader cultural change. There is a pressing need to raise awareness among managers about the value of serving the common good. The cultural change calls for education that shows how caring and sharing can bring genuine fulfillment – beyond just the pursuit of money, which still plays a role in people's drive for social progress (Hollensbe et al., 2014). As Hollensbe et al. (2014) stated, there is a crisis of trust in business because of the dominant growth-based managerial models, yet businesses need trust to achieve long-term success. Both regulatory bodies and educational institutions should help managers understand that today's customers and workforce – particularly the younger generations – expect organizations to act ethically and contribute to societal well-being (World Economic Forum, 2022). Companies that embrace common-good HRM are increasingly viewed as being driven by a higher purpose and human values, which attracts talent, fosters trust, and strengthens business partnerships.

The author would like to encourage practitioners to contribute to further development of common-good research by collaborating with academics in empirical research which addresses the above-presented challenges. In particular, organizations should leverage existing dimensions and practices from this study to initiate the development of scales and should compare the adoption of common-good HRM across industries or regions. They may also develop tools to assess outcomes such as business partner loyalty and stakeholder well-being directly, rather than relying solely on internal interpretations. This ensures alignment with the perspectives of those impacted by HRM practices.

Although this study investigated several important aspects of common-good HRM that have been neglected so far, such as key practices, antecedents, and outcomes, it is not free from limitations. Firstly, as Beer et al. (2015) noted, geographic context plays an important role in HRM research. Similarly, Cooke (2025) argued that common-good HRM is value-laden; therefore, the findings may not be fully representative to other countries or cultural contexts. As indicated in this study, Poland's socioeconomic, cultural, and regulatory environment may shape specific HRM practices and perceptions, making it difficult to apply the conclusions universally. For example, some phenomena existing at the time of the study (e.g. the war in Ukraine) could have disproportionately influenced the respondents' views, making the findings time-sensitive. Secondly, this study collected the opinions of HR managers. It may not capture a sufficiently diverse range of stakeholders' expectations toward common-good HRM (e.g. employees or community members). The perspectives could be included in future research. Thirdly, the participants might overemphasize the positive aspects of common-good HRM or align their responses with socially desirable norms, particularly when discussing “the common good”, which carries inherently positive connotations. As Kramar (2022) stated, there is a need to recognize both the positive and negative outcomes of HRM practices. Therefore, future studies should identify the negative outcomes of common-good HRM. Finally, this study leaves open questions that can be addressed in future research, some of which are presented in the theoretical contributions section. Future researchers are encouraged to develop and validate the common-good HRM measurement scale, and use quantitative research to test the relationships between the variables presented in this study. They may also identify specific barriers faced by companies attempting to adopt an “outside-in” perspective and strategies to overcome these challenges.