R E S EA RC H

Copyright © 2015
SAGE Publications
(Los Angeles, London, New Delhi,
Singapore and Washington DC)
www.sagepublications.com
Vol 9(2): 160–178
10.1177/0973408215588250

Sustainability in Recruitment and

Selection: Building a Framework
of Practices
DENISE M. JEPSEN and SUZANNE GROB

Abstract
Much has been written about the role of human resources professionals in
creating sustainable organizations. However, despite recognition that or-
ganizational human resources functions have an important role to play in
sustainability, researchers tend to focus on strategic issues and sustainabil-
ity. This higher-order focus has often meant that practical, operational-level
advice has been overlooked. This article addresses that gap by presenting
a framework of suggested sustainable recruitment and selection practices.
This framework is applicable to practitioners and acts as a curriculum for
educators. Almost 90 specific environmental, economic and social sustain-
ability practices in recruitment and selection were revealed in the data
collection process. A prioritized top 10 list of practices is recommended for
immediate implementation.

Keywords: Human resources, education, recruitment and selection, sus-

tainability, applied theory framework, practical application, corporate social
responsibility

A rguments supporting the role of human resources (HR) in promoting, driving

  or enabling sustainability in organizations abound. The central role of the HR
function (Eisenstat, 1996) enables it to play a key role in promoting sustainability
practices through broad, deep, internal and external relationships. Yet, HR manage-
ment has been criticized for having taken little notice of embracing sustainability

Denise M. Jepsen, Faculty of Business & Economics, Macquarie University, North Ryde NSW 2109,
Australia. E-mail: [email protected]
Suzanne Grob, University of Technology, Sydney, Australia. E-mail: [email protected]
Downloaded from jsd.sagepub.com at Middle East Technical Univ on December 17, 2015
 Sustainability in Recruitment and Selection 161

practices (Boudreau & Ramstad, 2005). HR professionals frequently take the blame by
association with management whose practices impose social and physical well-being
costs on employees and society generally (Pfeffer, 2010). The HR function should
embrace sustainability not just for organizational effectiveness and long-term eco-
nomic benefits but also for ethical reasons (Boudreau & Ramstad, 2005; Ketola, 2006)
and as part of responsible leadership (Ketola, 2010; Lehmann, Toh, Christensen &
Ma, 2010).
The aim of this article is to identify tools, practices and processes to address
some of the criticisms of a slow uptake of corporate sustainability practices. The
article targets recruitment and selection processes within the HR function. It gives
a brief background to the sustainability literature, its relationship with corporate
social responsibility (CSR) and the existing HR sustainability literature. A framework
of recruitment and selection practices that address the impact of environmental,
economic and social sustainability issues is followed by a discussion of the top
10 practices that a recruitment professional may implement to effect sustainability
in their workplace. Rather than providing a ‘how to’ protocol, this article outlines
the next steps for sustainability in the HR functional domain.

Literature Review

Sustainability
Sustainability, sustainable development and CSR are highly contested terms (Matten
& Moon, 2008; Schwartz & Carroll, 2008), even a ‘tortured concept’ (Godfrey, Hatch
& Hansen, 2010, p. 316), open to ambiguity as definitions have evolved in different
settings and requirements. Sustainable development’s best-known definition is:
‘development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability
of future generations to meet their own needs’ (World Commission on Economic
Development, 1987, p. 43). The triple bottom line (Elkington, 1997) includes
environmental, societal and economic measures, also referred to as people, planet
and profits (Hawken, Lovins & Lovins, 1999). Missing from the HR sustainability
literature is a framework or guide on how to teach, educate and integrate the triple
bottom line or sustainable processes and practices into an individual or organization’s
everyday recruitment and selection activities.
Sustainability and sustainable development (Welford, 1997) most frequently refer
to the macro environment and society, advocating large-scale change. CSR forms
part of enacting a broader sustainable development agenda typically confined to
organizations, and predominantly but not exclusively those in the for-profit sector
(Moon, 2007). For ease of description, we apply the term ‘sustainable practices’ to
describe the suggested HR practices to make those practices congruent with CSR.
These ‘sustainable practices’ would form part of an organization’s path towards
introducing and embedding CSR.
Many frameworks and models have been proposed for research and practice on
environmental problems (for example, Linnenluecke & Griffiths, 2010; Shrivastava,

Journal of Education for Sustainable Development 9:2 (2015): 160–178

Downloaded from jsd.sagepub.com at Middle East Technical Univ on December 17, 2015
162 Denise M. Jepsen and Suzanne Grob

1995; Valente, 2010), assessment methodologies (Singh, Murty, Gupta & Dikshit,
2008) and sustainable development (Lado, Boyd & Wright, 1992; Sharpley, 2000).
Equally, there are many diverse motivating forces encouraging corporations to
adopt more sustainable practices (Babiak & Trendafilova, 2011; Ditlev-Simonsen &
Midttun, 2011; Dobers & Springett, 2010). One model of sustainable shareholder
value, based on today/tomorrow and internal/external dimensions, details the drivers
of each of the quadrants, defines their strategies and points to the corporate payoff
(Hart & Milstein, 2003). Leadership practices demonstrate how managers have led
their organizations towards greater sustainability (Avery, 2005), contributing to the
insect model of ‘honeybee’ behaviour that is ‘more sustainable,…builds community
and ecosystems’ in contrast to the destructive locust forces that ‘swarm together
and eat green fields bare’ (Avery & Bergsteiner, 2010, p. ix).
Strategic advice on embracing sustainability includes creating community alli-
ances between corporations, citizens and governments as part of an integrated plan
involving strategic HR management, organizational change, ecological sustainabil-
ity, social responsibility and effective leadership (Dunphy, Griffiths & Benn, 2007).
Six phases of sustainability practices are demonstrated as organizations move from
sustainability rejection through to the transformed sustainable organization. Learning
and change for sustainability may be seen through other lenses also (Benn & Martin,
2010). Specific organizational initiatives to help employees learn about sustainabi-
lity include codes of conduct, impact measures, policies, purchasing and supply
chain initiatives and employee training (Haugh & Talwar, 2010). CSR is multiple and
multifaceted (Godfrey et al., 2010).

Human Resources Role in Sustainability

The literature on the role of HR in sustainable organizations is extensive (for example,
Andersson, Shivarajan & Blau, 2005; Clarke, 2011; Cohen, 2010; Hart & Milstein, 2003;
Neubaum & Zahra, 2006; Tesone, 2004; Wilkinson, 2005; Young & Thyil, 2009).
However, there has been little integration of sustainability practices into mainstream HR
education, at both undergraduate and practitioner levels. Only when set into a syllabus,
and promulgated through relevant professional development will these practices
become normative.
An extension to the resource-based view of the firm that resources, including
HR, are a major contributor to a firm’s competitive advantage (Barney, 1991; Barney,
Ketchen & Wright, 2011; Barney, Wright & Ketchen, 2001; Husted, Allen & Rivera,
2010) is the natural resource-based view of the firm that incorporates the firm’s
relationship to the natural environment (Hart, 1995; Hart & Dowell, 2011) and CSR
strategies (McWilliams & Siegel, 2011). HR sustainability has been described as a
symbol of an integrated, long-term people management approach, resulting in sus-
tained business performance and employee benefits (Wilkinson, Hill & Gollan, 2001).
Organizations must recognize the value of and promote its people for true corporate
sustainability. Sustainable HR practices are viewed as a response from stakeholders
and civil society organizations to more responsible corporate business practices
(Ählström, 2010).

Journal of Education for Sustainable Development 9:2 (2015): 160–178

Downloaded from jsd.sagepub.com at Middle East Technical Univ on December 17, 2015
 Sustainability in Recruitment and Selection 163

As management and employees improve consultation and communication, high

involvement management provides another key to sustainable HR (Gollan, 2005).
The role of executive pay and incentives on CSR has been detailed (Callan & Thomas,
2011). HR must recognize and be concerned about the social, not just physical,
effects of their work and work environment on employees and society more widely
(Pfeffer, 2010). Highlighting inadequacies of organizational social responsibility,
Pfeffer (2010, p. 35) notes that ‘polar bears and milk jugs’ appear to be more impor-
tant than people. The impact and social costs of long work hours, workplace bullying
and inadequate sick leave and vacations have yet to be addressed.
The contribution that HR can make to organizations as an innovative culture is
seen as underpinning organizational sustainability (Jabbour & Santos, 2008). Kanchan
(2010) illustrates how integrating ‘sustainable’ HR practices was integral to a paper
mill’s CSR strategy and led to community improvements. Recruiting people into
an organization who are committed to the environment is recommended, but no
further specifics about how to find, select, evaluate or recruit these environmentally
committed individuals are given.

Recruitment and Selection’s Role in Sustainability

Perhaps the most visible function within HR is recruitment and selection, with its
role as external boundary scanner to potential new employees and the gateway for
all new employees. Recognizing the essential nature of the recruitment and selection
function, the literature is vast (Schmidt & Hunter, 1998). Specialist research has been
conducted on seemingly all aspects of recruitment and selection, including interview-
ing (Marchese & Muchinsky, 1993; Roth, Van Iddekinge, Huffcutt, Eidson & Schmit,
2005; Schmidt & Rader, 1999); resume evaluation (Bright & Hutton, 2000; Cole, Feild
& Giles, 2003); assessment centres (Collins, Schmidt, Sanchez-Ku, Thomas, McDaniel
& Le, 2003; Dilchert & Ones, 2009; Jackson, Stillman & Englert, 2010; Jansen & Stoop,
1994; Kauffman, Jex, Love & Libkuman, 1993); realistic job previews (Barksdale,
Bellenger, Boles & Brashear, 2003; Suszko & Breaugh, 1986); and psychometrics
(Brutus & Facteau, 2003; Derous, Born & Witte, 2004; Van Iddekinge, Raymark, Roth
& Payne, 2006). This specialist recruitment literature, appropriately, focuses on re-
cruitment and selection’s role within the HR function. Although it could be said that
much of the recruitment and selection literature has examined organizational and
therefore economic sustainability, there is little recruitment literature that directly
investigates the more recently relevant environmental and societal aspects of recruit-
ment and selection practices.
What little research there is has found a link between corporate social perfor-
mance and employee attraction and retention. Turban and Greening (1996) found
students preferred to work for organizations with better reputations, even after con-
trolling for organization size and profitability. Aguilera, Rupp, Williams and Ganapathi
(2007) theorized that an organization’s social actions provided employees with some
indication of its fairness, and organizational justice research provides evidence of a
positive impact of this on employee well-being, job satisfaction, stress, health and
positive emotion (see Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter & Ng, 2001 for review).

Journal of Education for Sustainable Development 9:2 (2015): 160–178

Downloaded from jsd.sagepub.com at Middle East Technical Univ on December 17, 2015
164 Denise M. Jepsen and Suzanne Grob

This supports Cable and Turban’s (2001) observation that perception of the
organization is as important as perception of the job itself, and agrees with
Slaughter and Greguras’s (2009) finding that organizations perceived as highly
innovative, helpful, trustworthy and somewhat prestigious are more attrac-
tive to job seekers. Finally, Ahmad and Schroeder (2002) found an increase in
product quality and firm competitiveness when social and technical systems are
considered.
There has been a call for material on practical implications to help organizations
become sustainable (Jabbour & Santos, 2008, p. 2133) and for the general principles
of sustainability to be translated into operational business practices (Bansal, 2002).
The scant attention to sustainability issues in the recruitment and selection literature
makes it appropriate to now focus on recruitment and selection as a key component
of a sustainability culture. Beyond being better for the environment, the business
and existing employees, this focus on sustainability from a recruitment and selection
perspective provides organizations with the opportunity to attract new employees
that are ready and willing to support and participate in organizational sustainability
endeavours.
The aim of this article is to further bridge the gap between the strategic organi-
zational and HR sustainability literatures and provide clear guidelines for recruitment
and selection sustainability tools, processes and operations. Given the role of recruit-
ers in introducing the organization to a wide external stakeholder audience, combined
with the opportunity to establish a psychological contract (Rousseau, 1990) that will
incorporate environmentally and socially responsible behaviour, it is imperative that
recruiters are given the tools to implement sustainable practices. The remainder of
this article describes a study to identify sustainable recruitment and selection practic-
es. The resulting framework sets out recruitment and selection practices that address
triple bottom line considerations.

Method

Data were collected from diverse sources and compiled with the help of experts.
There were three phases.
Phase One. In the first, literature search phase, the peer-reviewed literature was
reviewed for papers discussing both sustainability and CSR with recruitment and
selection. Beyond the scholarly literature, however, the popular press, including
business and HR trade magazines and consultancy reports, were examined. Examples
and discussions of sustainability practices, particularly related to recruitment and
selection rather than more broadly in the HR field or other HR functions, were
sought. Instances where the recruitment and selection practices were associated
with excellent sustainability practices, rather than simply good or satisfactory
sustainability practices, were sought. Case studies of sustainability practices in
HR departments and functions from these sources were analyzed as a means
of optimizing our understanding of the literature (Eisenhardt, 1989; Stake, 2005;
Yin, 2003).

Journal of Education for Sustainable Development 9:2 (2015): 160–178

Downloaded from jsd.sagepub.com at Middle East Technical Univ on December 17, 2015
 Sustainability in Recruitment and Selection 165

Phase Two. The second and concurrent data collection phase was a series of
interviews. The interviews were conducted by the two authors in person and by
telephone. The researchers spoke with 15 HR specialists associated with Australian
organizations known to be operating with best practice sustainability principles. The
one hour, semi-structured interviews (Miles & Huberman, 1994) enabled the authors
to determine current HR practices.
Phase Three. In the third phase, a full day of focus group discussion with experts
in the sustainability and HR fields was held to validate and authenticate the findings,
with emphasis on processes that could be practically implemented in organizations.
The focus group applied an adapted Delphi technique (Dalkey & Helmer, 1963).
Despite controversy on the definition of an expert (Hasson, Keeney & McKenna, 2000),
the first step in a Delphi technique is to gather an expert panel (Dunham, 1996).
Eight HR and sustainability consultants and practitioners attended the workshop. The
participants had 10 years working experience either in some aspect of sustainability
or in HR functions. One participant had owned a private employment agency, another
had been a senior advisor to government on sustainable procurement and another had
expertise in creating and communicating sustainability policy within the educational
sector, while others had specialist recruitment experience. Public, private and non-
profit sectors were represented.
The processes identified from the literature review and organizational consultation
were validated and prioritized in the focus group and formed into a comprehensive
framework of sustainable HR practices in the recruitment and selection functions.
The first focus group session consisted of reports by the authors on the results of
the literature searches and the interviews to triangulate the findings with current
practices (Patton, 2002). This process is consistent with the Delphi process’s neces-
sity to understand the nature of a problem to be investigated (Hasson et al., 2000).
Discussions were minuted so that any newly raised sustainable HR practices could
be included in later discussions. Following the reports, an ideas-generating period
of brainstorming was conducted. This session enabled interaction between the
HR and sustainability experts so that ideas from both domains could be incorpor-
ated into possible sustainable HR practices. The third session was a discussion of
the ideas generated in the brainstorming session. Rules incorporated into the
editing process of this session covered including practices even if only found
in a single organizational example. The fourth session was intended to ensure
construct validity in that the full spectrum of each domain within the recruitment
and selection functions was discussed systematically. A framework was created to
categorize sustainability practices generated in the brainstorming and discussion
sessions to be aligned to a recruitment and selection curriculum. These key learning
areas are presented in the Appendix. Each key learning area includes examples of
practices that were most relevant to supporting economic, environmental or socially
responsible sustainability, although these distinctions are sometimes blurred by
multiple applicability.
In the final resolution session of the workshop, participants privately rated their
‘top 10’ sustainable recruitment and selection practices. Most of the dominant ideas

Journal of Education for Sustainable Development 9:2 (2015): 160–178

Downloaded from jsd.sagepub.com at Middle East Technical Univ on December 17, 2015
166 Denise M. Jepsen and Suzanne Grob

emerged by consensus (Dunham, 1996), with just three rankings on the sequence
of the top 10 HR practices being decided by a vote.

Results and Discussion

The study set out to determine the practices that might be used to educate a recruitment
and selection practitioner attempting to demonstrate personal and organizational
leadership in adopting sustainable business practices. Results indicate that there is
an abundance of practical advice, tools, steps and actions that are relatively easy to
implement to support a recruitment practitioner to introduce sustainable practices.
Around 90 practices were identified to support sustainability in 10 domains of
recruitment and selection. Some of the practices, however, would be difficult for
a recruiter to adopt without strong corporate support. To provide a starting point for
educators, recruiters, HR executives and organizational sustainability champions, and
to encourage future debate, we present our top 10 recommendations for sustainability
in recruitment and selection:

1. Paperless processes: Using technology to reduce paperwork is perhaps

the most obvious environmentally preferable practice. Recruitment-
related activities that are now frequently conducted electronically include
advertising vacancies, receiving and distributing applicant resumes,
reference checks, letters of offer and employment contracts. Many induction
processes are online, web based or otherwise electronically managed.
2. Technology to reduce travel: The need for in-person interviews is changing
as technology allows for improved remote communication. Whether the two
parties are located across the city, the country or are spread internationally,
technology such as teleconferencing, video conferencing and Voice
over Internet Protocol (VOIP) calls mean high-quality discussions may be
conducted without the environmental costs of air and motor vehicle travel.
Webcam-enabled, home-based applicants will save energy, carbon and
greenhouse gas emissions by reduced travel occurrences and will increase
their personal time. The number of in-person interviews may be reduced
by introducing at least some electronic and video interviews.
3. Green interviews: The interview setting and way in which it is conducted
will create a strong impression on candidates and contribute to the
psychological contract of the newly hired employee. Reusable crockery,
direct keyboard entry and an interview environment that demonstrates
sustainability practices that exhibits leadership by the recruitment team
gives an impression to the candidate and sets the tone for later
employment.
4. Recruitment from within: Creating an organization that develops its own
employees not only provides increased opportunities for personal growth
but also is more likely to become an employer of choice, more easily able
to attract high-quality applicants and retain high-quality employees.

Journal of Education for Sustainable Development 9:2 (2015): 160–178

Downloaded from jsd.sagepub.com at Middle East Technical Univ on December 17, 2015
 Sustainability in Recruitment and Selection 167

5. Incorporating sustainability practices into job design: As safety was

once ignored in favour of gaining increased productivity, so too has
sustainability not been included as a core value in many organizations.
Having sustainability practices incorporated into an organization’s
job description template means every job is evaluated for relevant
sustainability practices.
6. Sustainability competencies: Many organizations are recruiting or selecting
people who will be sustainability champions in their organization; yet,
many managers and recruiters themselves are not aware of the technical
skills they are seeking. Beyond specific education requirements and
research, communication, organizational change and political skills
needed for such roles, consultants are likely to recommend selection
criteria for these positions to include awareness and understanding of
sustainability. This may take the form of either formal work positions,
sustainability components of a position or participation in local community
as a volunteer. Sustainability may also form part of an employee’s
responsibilities. Formal sustainability competencies might include an
understanding and experience of sustainability reporting applying the
Global Reporting Initiative and responsibility for the organizational
membership of the United Nations Global Compact or managing and
reporting on production processes that adhere to the ISO 14000 series
that cover the use and application of environmental management systems
in organizations. Sustainability components of mainstream jobs may
include carbon accounting as part of the responsibility for a financial officer.
Volunteering in community-based programmes such as bush and native
vegetation regeneration is an example of an employee’s commitment to
the principles of sustainability. Whether reference checks are conducted
internally or externally, when sustainability is an important and stated
consideration for a new hire, there is a need to include the checking of the
candidate’s claims of sustainable practices in
the reference check.
7. Flexibility to encourage applicant diversity: A full range of potential applicants
is less likely if interviews are conducted only in standard business hours.
Consider the needs of potential older, distant, caring, handicapped, returned
veterans or minority workers and ensure job advertisements are appropriately
written and placed to appeal to a diverse range of applicants—then offer
flexibility in timing for in-person attendances.
8. Community engagement: Consider what good the organization can do for a
community, near or far, including through existing community engagement
or partnership programmes.
9. Induction demonstrates sustainability: When a new employee is inducted
into the organization, use best sustainability practices to showcase the
organization’s expectations and demonstrate leadership in commitment
to sustainability.

Journal of Education for Sustainable Development 9:2 (2015): 160–178

Downloaded from jsd.sagepub.com at Middle East Technical Univ on December 17, 2015
168 Denise M. Jepsen and Suzanne Grob

10. Monitor and report sustainability targets: Create, monitor and report on
selected sustainability practices/targets for recruitment and selection
within existing sustainability reporting mechanisms. Whether incremental
or radical change is sought, measurement provides the opportunity
to assess the status, evaluate progress and review the merits of a sustainability
programme.

These recommendations are limited since they do not address implementation issues.
For example, technology—a ‘solution’ raised as a priority in this article—may be not
just an asset but a liability also. There is a trade-off for many organizations in adopting
a technology solution that allows reductions in paperwork, travel and other resource
strain. The cost of technology may be difficult for organizations under financial strain,
when margins are slim and corporate belts are being tightened. The cost to purchase
and maintain hardware and software, user training and technical support can be
prohibitive for many organizations. Yet, to be truly sustainable, organizational actors
must be supplied with the equipment required to perform these tasks. Assessors
need electronic pads for recording at assessment centres. Recruiters need quiet
keyboards for interview or telephone reference checking and note taking, and they
need large screens for on-screen reading of job applications, psychometric reports
and assessment matrixes. Employees need the equipment, technology and support
to enable at-home, telecommuting or remote work that is as fast and effective as
office-based work.
The ‘technology solution’ to sustainable recruitment also supposes that e-recruitment
suits all organizations. The use of technology may be a hindrance to those organizations
with particular recruitment needs. Consider, for example, new, innovative or small
organizations for which e-literacy is not a priority. Consider potential employees who
may be excluded from an online recruitment process because of the nature of their
work or other circumstances. A completely online solution is unworkable for many
organizations and limiting for many others. Providing a range of application avenues
will often be a premium solution.
Not all these practices are new, and there are other skills beyond those listed
that are needed in an organization. For example, the particular skills of sustainability
assessment, accreditation and accounting are needed in the HR team (Rance, 2008).
We know, too, that the culture of an organization will be a major obstacle to imple-
menting the activities listed here. The strength and power of the existing culture
may preclude all but the smallest steps towards personal leadership in sustainable
practices. There are many situations in which incremental change is better than no
change at all.
Albeit these HR practices are difficult to implement in workplaces, the flow-on
effect of these to employees’ lives cannot be discounted. Many potential employees
seek out organizations that are like minded in their commitment to sustainability.
Translating and integrating the practices articulated here have the potential to educate
not only students, HR practitioners but also employee networks and society more
broadly. Within organizations, this framework can act as a platform for introducing
broader sustainability initiatives or as a trial in the HR department.

Journal of Education for Sustainable Development 9:2 (2015): 160–178

Downloaded from jsd.sagepub.com at Middle East Technical Univ on December 17, 2015
 Sustainability in Recruitment and Selection 169

The potential human cost of not implementing sustainable business practices is

urgent. Recruiters have a unique opportunity to convey the organization’s sustain-
ability goals at the point of entry to an organization to a large audience of potential
employees. The in-person demonstration of the organization’s values is likely to rein-
force new employees’ commitment to sustainability and will enhance the organiza-
tion’s sustainability reputation for those who are not selected. Recruiters have the
opportunity to set up a personal sustainability dialogue between the organization
and each individual as they approach the organization. Future researchers may one
day develop comprehensive tools to assess applicants’ commitment to sustainability
(green thinking).

Conclusion

There has been an explosion of organizations professing to embrace sustainability

through vehicles such as reporting, eco-efficiency and more recently, through car-
bon footprinting. This article has demonstrated that applying sustainability to recruit-
ment and selection has been a missing link in corporate sustainability. By providing
a framework of practices that HR practitioners can apply in everyday recruitment
and selection processes, we have shown that the implementation and practice of
sustainability is often easily accessible. Educators have a unique opportunity to dis-
seminate this recruitment and selection sustainability learning framework. In one
place, the article articulates and summarizes the economic, environmental and social
sustainability practices pertinent to recruitment and selection.
People are said to be an organization’s most valuable resource. By show-
casing commitment to sustainability in recruitment and selection from inception,
potential employees are encouraged to embrace the vision of the organization and
commit to a long-term future with both the organization and sustainability itself.
An early statement of sustainable practices allows HR to role model sustainability.
The value of this framework documenting sustainability practices is that strong
sustainability cultural values have been communicated from the start and employ-
ees have aligned expectations and an unbroken psychological contract with the
organization.
To respond to the call for increased attention to human sustainability (Pfeffer,
2010), a focus on specific practices, such as those identified in this article for recruit-
ment and selection function, will enable every HR team member to personally and
professionally support their organization in sustainable practices. Applying sus-
tainability principles to recruitment and selection practices demonstrates not only
a commitment to the planet, people and profits, but may serve as the competitive
differentiator in the employee marketplace.

Journal of Education for Sustainable Development 9:2 (2015): 160–178

Downloaded from jsd.sagepub.com at Middle East Technical Univ on December 17, 2015
 Appendix

Table A1 Economic, Environmental and Social Sustainability Practices in 10 Recruitment and Selection Domains
Key Learning Areas Economic Environment Social
Guiding principles • A
 ssume these practices align with the • U se email for correspondence rather than • Value diversity in employees.
organization’s sustainability objectives, physical signing as encrypted signatures
plans or strategy. are now acceptable.
• Conduct an eco-audit.
• Use renewable energy.
• Offset carbon energy.
Job descriptions and • Include environmental dimension in job • Include ‘green skills’ in job descriptions. • Include social dimensions in conditions of
employment contract descriptions, e.g., identify power and • Include requirement to adapt business employment, e.g., voluntary work in the
other resources. practices to be sustainable into conditions third sector.
• Include generic statement in job descrip- of employment for new hire, e.g., to not print • Include ethical decision-making skills in job
tion that the incumbent will take respon- emails and to use the correct waste systems design (e.g., recognize ethical dilemma,
sibility for environmental impact. (such as recycling bin, general waste and think through and analyze, discuss with
• Use selection criteria to specifically seek compostable waste). stakeholders and make informed decision).
skills in sustainable knowledge and • Agree to sustainable practices in the
practices. letter of offer.
Workforce planning • P romote from within—social impact— • U se electronic workforce planning • C reate community engagement with
and reduce external recruitment. systems. disenfranchised communities, e.g., create
• Align the organization with sustainability • Use electronic succession planning and work with a pool of potential ap-
groups to become attractive to those systems. plicants such as a school or community to
who are familiar with leaders in those • Use electronic career planning systems. build up their competencies as they get

Downloaded from jsd.sagepub.com at Middle East Technical Univ on December 17, 2015
groups, e.g., speak at conference orga- • Build strategic alliances to employ best to know the organization.
nized by ‘green’ groups. practice thinking in workforce planning • Provide funding and fund visitors from,
• Use an employee referral programme and to look ahead. and send volunteer employees to, remote
as cost and energy saving. locations to build wider organization–
• Conduct succession planning for community links
the organization.
 Key Learning Areas Economic Environment Social
• C onduct career planning for the • R ecognize the lifetime contribution of
employees. employees and extent to which employ-
• Support employees in restructures and ment contributes to employees’ lives.
transitions, e.g., part time, then re-employ, • Paid and unpaid leave options, including
re-training and help finding other maternity, paternity, adoption, grandpar-
positions. ent, volunteer, secondment, sabbatical
• Provide telecommuting, work-from-home career breaks.
and other mobile or non-office-based • High-quality mechanisms for retaining
work design options. connection with ‘absent’ employees.
Selection decision • D
 evelop strong selection criteria that • R
 educe travel time by reducing the • E nsure a strong culture fit for the employ-
making create good person–organization fit to number of times the applicant needs ee to ensure comfortable commitment
encourage retention. to come to the premises during to the organization.
the application and appointment • Ensure inclusivity through actively
process. developing and pursuing targets and
measurements for diversity.
Application forms • P
 rovide online or e-recruitment as part • Use paperless systems. • U se phone, video or voice recording of
of overall recruitment strategy. job applications where warranted.
• Provide translators for forms where
needed.
Interview preparation • P
 rovide an information sheet on the • P rovide bike racks for interviewees • D eclare which charities the organization
organization’s sustainability position, and employees. supports at interview.
values and culture, online or at interview, • Provide clean, warm and accessible • Arrange for applicant’s children to be
in order to be transparent about the shower facilities for interviewees minded on-site during interview to

Downloaded from jsd.sagepub.com at Middle East Technical Univ on December 17, 2015
organization style. and employees. encourage and support parents and
• Discourage interviewees from driving by career applicants.
providing public transport passes • Provide flexibility in interview timing—
or vouchers for interviews. interviews available after hours—so less
flexible applicants have the opportunity
to attend an interview.
(Table A1 continued)
 (Table A1 continued)
Key Learning Areas Economic Environment Social
Interview conduct • Include sustainability representative on • U se teleconference, video conference, • U se fair trade coffee and tea.
interview panel as statement of impor- telephone or VOIP as alternative to in- • Provide natural rather than artificial light-
tance to interviewees. person interview. ing.
• Use computers, not paper, for interview • Ensure sufficient ventilation and optimal • Use interview room with distant views to
note taking to save rework. Interviewer way to have 100% fresh air exchange. reduce eye strain and interview intensity.
sits beside interviewee who can see • Ensure surface finishes contain low-emit- • Showcase organization’s sustainable prac-
the notes. ting VOC (volatile organic compounds) tices with a site tour during the recruit-
furniture and fittings certified by environ- ment period to enhance engagement
mental labels. and reinforce organizational
• Provide disabled access and fully adjust- commitment.
able interviewee chair.
• Use washable mugs and organic milk,
remove bottled water and disposable
crockery.
Ability or personality • U
 se well-recognized and verified assess- • C onsider online testing and assessment • R educe feedback time to candidates to
testing ment instruments to improve reliability, rather than attending site or consultant reduce potential stress.
reduce the need to retest and enhance premises. Online assessments may be • Use tests in multiple languages.
selection decision making. verified in person. • Use tests that accommodate disability.
• Use VOIP and teleconferencing facilities • Use tests that promote inclusivity by
to reduce air travel of applicants, debrief avoiding discrimination on gender, race
on the phone. or age.
• Ensure valid and reliable tests are used.

Downloaded from jsd.sagepub.com at Middle East Technical Univ on December 17, 2015
Assessment centres • C onduct validation studies of exist- •  se paperless exercises.
U • R educe feedback time to candidates to
ing recruitment practices to determine • Use online testing and assessment. reduce potential stress.
value added by each step of recruitment • Use digital note taking by assessors. • Use exercises in multiple languages.
process. • Compile overall assessment data using • Use assessors of diverse backgrounds.
• Conduct regular audits to simplify and combined spreadsheets, use data projec- • Ensure valid and reliable exercises
streamline assessments to improve pro- tor rather than multiple photocopies. are used.
cess efficiency and reduce costs.
 Key Learning Areas Economic Environment Social
Reference checking • V
 erify candidates’ claims of sustainability • U se paperless system. • V erify candidates’ claims of sustainability
commitment. • Keep digital audio recording of reference commitment and other sustainability
• Use specialist reference checkers for check phone calls rather than principles such as diversity.
technical claims. paper record. • Verify person–organization fit.
• Use email, VOIP and telephone to
conduct reference checks.
Induction • P rovide access to sustainability champi- • U se paperless induction process. • Introduce new staff, help them ‘break
ons in the organization. • Use online networking and Skype to link the ice’ to create community.
• Link sustainability to organizational employees with related groups such as • Ensure new employees can access all
strategy and branding. others in their functional area, job type facilities and are not struggling with
• Encourage senior executive to give or job level to generate community. a disability.
presentation to new recruits on • Use online blogging, commenting, email • Ensure new employees know about
sustainability vision for the and polling systems to keep up with new and can access the organization’s per-
organization. staff feelings and help them to settle in. sonal and social benefits such as gym
membership, yoga classes and wellness
programmes.
Source: Authors’ own.
Note: VOIP: Voice over Internet Protocol.

Downloaded from jsd.sagepub.com at Middle East Technical Univ on December 17, 2015
174 Denise M. Jepsen and Suzanne Grob

References
Aguilera, R.V., Rupp, D.E., Williams, C.A., & Ganapathi, J. (2007). Putting the S back in to cor-
porate social responsibility: A multilevel theory of social change in organisations. Academy
of Management Review, 32(3), 836–863.
Ählström, J. (2010). Corporate response to CSO criticism: Decoupling the corporate responsibi-
lity discourse from business practice. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental
Management, 17(2), 70–80.
Ahmad, S., & Schroeder, R.G. (2002). The importance of recruitment and selection process for
sustainability of total quality management. International Journal of Quality & Reliability
Management, 19(5), 540–550. doi: 10.1108/02656710210427511
Andersson, L., Shivarajan, S., & Blau, G. (2005). Enacting ecological sustainability in the
MNC: A test of an adapted value–belief–norm framework. Journal of Business Ethics,
59(3), 295–305.
Avery, G.C. (2005). Leadership for sustainable futures: Achieving success in a competitive
world. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
Avery, G.C., & Bergsteiner, H. (2010). Honeybees and locusts: The business case for sustain-
able leadership. Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin.
Babiak, K., & Trendafilova, S. (2011). CSR and environmental responsibility: Motives
and pressures to adopt green management practices. Corporate Social Responsibility and
Environmental Management, 18(1), 11–24.
Bansal, P. (2002). The corporate challenges of sustainable development. Academy of Manage-
ment Executive, 16(2), 122–131.
Barksdale, H.C., Bellenger, D.N., Boles, J.S., & Brashear, T.G. (2003). The impact of realistic
job previews and perceptions of training on sales force performance and continuance
commitment: A longitudinal test. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management,
23(2), 125–138.
Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Manage-
ment, 17(1), 99–120.
Barney, J.B., Ketchen, D.J., & Wright, M. (2011). The future of resource-based theory. Journal
of Management, 37(5), 1299–1315.
Barney, J., Wright, M., & Ketchen, D.J. (2001). The resource-based view of the firm: Ten years
after 1991. Journal of Management, 27(6), 625–641.
Benn, S., & Martin, A. (2010). Learning and change for sustainability reconsidered: A role for
boundary objects. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 9(3), 397–412.
Boudreau, J.W., & Ramstad, P.M. (2005). Talentship, talent segmentation, and sustainability:
A new HR decision science paradigm for a new strategy definition. Human Resource
Management, 44(2), 129–136. doi: 10.1002/hrm.20054
Bright, J.E.H., & Hutton, S. (2000). The impact of competency statements on résumés for
short-listing decisions. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 8(2), 41–53.
doi: 10.1111/1468-2389.00132
Brutus, S., & Facteau, J. (2003). Short, simple, and specific: The influence of item design
characteristics in multi-source assessment contexts. International Journal of Selection and
Assessment, 11(4), 313–325. doi: 10.1111/j.0965-075X.2003.00254.x
Cable, D.M., & Turban, D.B. (2001). Establishing the dimensions, sources, and value of job
seekers’ employer knowledge during recruitment. In G. Ferris (Ed.), Research in Personnel
and Human Resources Management (pp. 115–163). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.
Callan, S.J., & Thomas, J.M. (2011). Executive compensation, corporate social responsibility,
and corporate financial performance: A multi-equation framework. Corporate Social
Responsibility and Environmental Management, 18(6), 332–351.

Journal of Education for Sustainable Development 9:2 (2015): 160–178

Downloaded from jsd.sagepub.com at Middle East Technical Univ on December 17, 2015
 Sustainability in Recruitment and Selection 175

Clarke, M. (2011). Readings in HRM and sustainability. Prahran, VIC: Tilde University
Press.
Cohen, E. (2010). CSR for HR. Sheffield, UK: Greenleaf Publishing Limited.
Cole, M.S., Feild, H.S., & Giles, W.F. (2003). Using recruiter assessments of applicants’ resume
content to predict applicant mental ability and big five personality dimensions. International
Journal of Selection and Assessment, 11(1), 78–88. doi: 10.1111/1468-2389.00228
Collins, J.M., Schmidt, F.L., Sanchez–Ku, M., Thomas, L., McDaniel, M.A., & Le, H. (2003).
Can basic individual differences shed light on the construct meaning of assessment
center evaluations? International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 11(1), 17–29.
doi: 10.1111/1468-2389.00223
Colquitt, J.A., Conlon, D.E., Wesson, M.J., Porter, C.O.L.H., & Ng, K.Y. (2001). Justice at the
millennium: A meta analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 425–445.
Dalkey, N., & Helmer, O. (1963). An experimental application of the Delphi method and the
use of experts. Management Science, 9(3), 307–308.
Derous, E., Born, M.P., & Witte, K.D. (2004). How applicants want and expect to be treated:
Applicants’ selection treatment beliefs and the development of the social process
questionnaire on selection. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 12(1–2),
99–119. doi: 10.1111/j.0965-075X.2004.00267.x
Dilchert, S., & Ones, D.S. (2009). Assessment center dimensions: Individual differences
correlates and meta-analytic incremental validity. International Journal of Selection and
Assessment, 17(3), 254–270. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2389.2009.00468.x
Ditlev-Simonsen, C.D., & Midttun, A. (2011). What motivates managers to pursue corporate
responsibility?: A survey among key stakeholders. Corporate Social Responsibility and
Environmental Management, 18(1), 25–38.
Dobers, P., & Springett, D. (2010). Corporate social responsibility: Discourse, narratives and
communication. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management,
17(2), 63–69.
Dunham, R.B. (1996). The Delphi technique. Retrieved 14 March 2010, from http://www.
medsch.wisc.edu
Dunphy, D., Griffiths, A., & Benn, S. (2007). Organizational change for corporate
sustainability: A guide for leaders and change agents of the future (2nd ed.). Abingdon,
Oxon: Routledge.
Eisenhardt, E. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management
Review, 14(4), 532–550.
Eisenstat, R.A. (1996). What corporate human resources brings to the picnic: four models for
functional management. Organizational Dynamics, 25(2), 7–22.
Elkington, J. (1997). Cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st century business.
Oxford: Capstone.
Godfrey, P.C., Hatch, N.W., & Hansen, J.M. (2010). Toward a general theory of CSRs. Business
& Society, 49(2), 316–344. doi: 10.1177/0007650308315494
Gollan, P. (2005). High involvement management and human resoruce sustainability: The
challenges and opportunities. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 43(1), 18–33.
Hart, S.L. (1995). A natural-resource-based view of the firm. Academy of Management Review,
20(4), 986–1014.
Hart, S.L., & Dowell, G. (2011). Invited editorial: A natural-resource-based view of the Firm.
Journal of Management, 37(5), 1464–1479.
Hart, S.L., & Milstein, M.B. (2003). Creating sustainable value. Academy of Management
Executive, 17(2), 56–67.

Journal of Education for Sustainable Development 9:2 (2015): 160–178

Downloaded from jsd.sagepub.com at Middle East Technical Univ on December 17, 2015
176 Denise M. Jepsen and Suzanne Grob

Hasson, F., Keeney, S., & McKenna, H. (2000). Research guidelines for the Delphi survey
technique. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 32(4), 1008–1015.
Haugh, H.M., & Talwar, A. (2010). How do corporations embed sustainability across the
organization? Academy of Management Learning & Education, 9(3), 384–396.
Hawken, P., Lovins, A.B., & Lovins, H. (1999). Natural capitalism: Creating the next industrial
revolution. Boston: Little, Brown and Co.
Husted, B.W., Allen, D.B., & Rivera, J.E. (2010). Governance choice for strategic corporate
social responsibility. Business & Society, 49(2), 201–215. doi: 10.1177/0007650308315504
Jabbour, C.J.C., & Santos, F.C.S.A. (2008). The central role of human resource management in
the search for sustainable organizations. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 19(12), 2133–2154.
Jackson, D.J.R., Stillman, J.A., & Englert, P. (2010). Task-based assessment centers: Empirical
support for a systems model. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 18(2),
141–154. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2389.2010.00496.x
Jansen, P., & Stoop, B. (1994). Assessment center graduate selection: Decision processes,
validity, and evaluation by candidates. International Journal of Selection and Assessment,
2(4), 193–208. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2389.1994.tb00141.x
Kanchan, M. (2010). Weaving social responsibility with business strategy: A case study of south
India paper mills. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management,
17(3), 169–172.
Kauffman, J.R., Jex, S.M., Love, K.G., & Libkuman, T.M. (1993). The construct validity of assess-
ment centre performance dimensions. International Journal of Selection and Assessment,
1(4), 213–223. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2389.1993.tb00115.x
Ketola, T. (2006). From CR-psychopaths to responsible corporations: Waking up the inner
sleeping beauty of companies. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental
Management, 13(2), 98–107.
———. (2010). Responsible leadership. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental
Management, 17(3), 123–124.
Lado, A., Boyd, N., & Wright, P. (1992). A competency-based model of sustainable com-
petitive advantage: Toward a conceptual integration. Journal of Management, 18(1),
77–91.
Lehmann, M., Toh, I., Christensen, P., & Ma, R. (2010). Responsible leadership?: Development
of CSR at Danfoss, Denmark. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental
Management, 17(3), 153–168.
Linnenluecke, M., & Griffiths, A. (2010). Beyond adaptation: Resilience for business in light
of climate change and weather extremes. Business & Society, 49(3), 477–511. doi: 10.1177/
0007650310368814
Marchese, M.C., & Muchinsky, P.M. (1993). The validity of the employment interview: A meta-
analysis. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 1(1), 18–26. doi: 10.1111/j.
1468-2389.1993.tb00080.x
Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2008). Implicit and explicit CSR: A conceptual framework for a
comparative understanding of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management
Review, 33(2), 404–424.
McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D.S. (2011). Creating and capturing value. Journal of Management,
37(5), 1480–1495.
Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook
(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
Moon, J. (2007). The contribution of corporate social responsibility to sustainable develop-
ment. Sustainable Development, 15(5), 296–306.

Journal of Education for Sustainable Development 9:2 (2015): 160–178

Downloaded from jsd.sagepub.com at Middle East Technical Univ on December 17, 2015
 Sustainability in Recruitment and Selection 177

Neubaum, D.O., & Zahra, S.A. (2006). Institutional ownership and corporate social perfor-
mance: The moderating effects of investment horizon, activism, and coordination. Journal
of Management, 32(1), 108–131.
Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks:
SAGE.
Pfeffer, J. (2010). Building sustainable organizations: The human factor. Academy of Manage-
ment Perspectives, 24(1), 34–45.
Rance, C. (2008). Practically green. HR Monthly, pp. 16–23.
Roth, P.L., Van Iddekinge, C.H., Huffcutt, A.I., Eidson, C.E., & Schmit, M.J. (2005). Personality
saturation in structured interviews. International Journal of Selection and Assessment,
13(4), 261–273. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2389.2005.00323.x
Rousseau, D.M. (1990). New hire perceptions of their own and their employer’s obligations:
A study of psychological contracts. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 11(5), 389–400.
Schmidt, F.L., & Hunter, J.E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in person-
nel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings.
Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), 262–274.
Schmidt, F.L., & Rader, M. (1999). Exploring the boundary conditions for interview validity: Meta-
analytic validity findings for a new interview type. Personnel Psychology, 52(2), 445–464.
Schwartz, M.S., & Carroll, A.B. (2008). Integrating and unifying competing and complementary
frameworks. Business & Society, 47(2), 148–186. doi: 10.1177/0007650306297942
Sharpley, R. (2000). Tourism and sustainable development: Exploring the theoretical divide.
Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 8(1), 1–19.
Shrivastava, P. (1995). Ecocentric management for a risk society. Academy of Management
Review, 20(1), 118–137.
Singh, R., Murty, H., Gupta, S., & Dikshit, A. (2008). Development and implementation of
environmental strategies for steel industry. International Journal of Environmental
Technology and Management, 8(1), 69–86.
Slaughter, J.E., & Greguras, G.J. (2009). Initial attraction to organisations: The influence of trait
inferences. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 17(1), 1–18.
Stake, R.E. (2005). Qualitative case studies. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds), The Sage
handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Suszko, M.K., & Breaugh, J.A. (1986). The effects of realistic job previews on applicant self-
selection and employee turnover, satisfaction, and coping ability. Journal of Management,
12(4), 513–523.
Tesone, D.V. (2004). Development of a sustainable tourism hospitality human resources
management module: A template for teaching sustainability across the curriculum.
International Journal of Hospitality Management, 23(3), 207–237.
Turban, D.B., & Greening, D.W. (1996). Corporate social performance and organizational
attractiveness to prospective employees. Academy of Management Journal, 40(3), 658–672.
Valente, M. (2010). Demystifying the struggles of private sector paradigmatic change: Business
as an agent in a complex adaptive system. Business & Society, 49(3), 439–476. doi: 10.1177/
0007650310369376
Van Iddekinge, C.H., Raymark, P.H., Roth, P.L., & Payne, H.S. (2006). Comparing the psy-
chometric characteristics of ratings of face-to-face and videotaped structured interviews.
International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 14(4), 347–359. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-
2389.2006.00356.x
Welford, R. (1997). Highjacking environmentalism: Corporate responses to sustainable
development. London: Earthscan.
Wilkinson, A. (2005). Downsizing, rightsizing or dumbsizing? Quality, human resources and
the management of sustainability. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence,
16(8–9), 1079–1088. doi: 10.1080/14783360500163326

Journal of Education for Sustainable Development 9:2 (2015): 160–178

Downloaded from jsd.sagepub.com at Middle East Technical Univ on December 17, 2015
178 Denise M. Jepsen and Suzanne Grob

Wilkinson, A., Hill, M., & Gollan, P. (2001). The sustainability debate. International Journal
of Operations & Production Management, 21(12), 1492–1502.
World Commission on Economic Development. (1987). Our common future. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Yin, R.K. (2003). Case study research (3rd ed.). London: SAGE.
Young, S., & Thyil, V. (2009). Governance, employees and CSR: Integration is the key to
unlocking value. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 47(2), 167–185. doi: 10.1177/
1038411109105440

Journal of Education for Sustainable Development 9:2 (2015): 160–178

Downloaded from jsd.sagepub.com at Middle East Technical Univ on December 17, 2015