9) Challenges in Implementing Sustainable HRM Globally

Introduction

Sustainable Human Resource Management (S-HRM) has taken centre stage as a strategic focus in organisations as they deal with mounting pressure in the world on climate change, social inequality, ethical leadership and workforce wellbeing. S-HRM differs from traditional HRM, where efficiency and performance outcomes are the primary focus, but long-term environmental, social, and economic objectives are incorporated in people management systems. It focuses on the responsible employment practices, ethical decision-making, and sustainable development of human capital. Nevertheless, although this strategy has promise, sustainable HRM is very unequally implemented at the global level. The organisations in various regions have unique contextual issues, which determine their ability to incorporate sustainability in HR policies and behaviours.

                       This assignment is a critical analysis of the significant challenges to the adoption of sustainable HRM in the world, with particular focus on the cultural differences, cost, and misalignment of the stakeholders. Then, it examines the varying expressions of these barriers in developed and emerging economies, which offer comparative observations on structural, economic and institutional differences. Through an analysis of these dimensions, the paper brings out the reasons why the practices of sustainable HRM have remained complicated and haphazard in the presence of increasing international attention and increasing regulatory demands. Finally, it suggests that S-HRM needs to implement context-specific strategies in order to emerge successful in the global arena that reflect systemic limits and also bring together stakeholders' interests towards the long-term sustainability goals.

1. Obstacles towards Sustainable HRM Implementation.

1.1 The first one is Cultural Differences

Culture has a powerful impact on organisational behaviour, leadership expectations, employee attitudes and norms at the workplace. These cultural dimensions will either favour or hinder the adoption of sustainable HRM practices. Based on cross-cultural theories, including Hofstede cultural dimensions and the GLOBE research, countries differ greatly in terms of their collectivism orientation, power distance, uncertainty avoidance, and long-term orientation. These variations influence the way sustainability is perceived and implemented in the HR systems. In collectivist societies, where most Asian, Middle Eastern, and Latin American cultures belong, sustainability programs that focus on the welfare of the group can become natural to the values of society. Some of the practices include community involvement, fairness in labour treatment, and employee development over the long term, which are resonant. Nonetheless, sustainability efforts are usually discouraged by high power distance in these areas, which stifles employees at the bottom when it comes to participation in the activities. Employees also might not be eager to challenge the decisions of their leaders or engage in the ethical whistleblowing procedures, which limits the open and responsible HR practices.

                                   On the other hand, individualistic cultures that are also dominant in Western countries promote independence, self-centeredness, and personal success. Such contexts are capable of supporting sustainable work-life balance, diversity and career self-management initiatives. However, in the very individualistic setting, it might turn out to be difficult to advance environmental responsibility or community-based HR policies. Employees can focus on their personal gains instead of the long-term environmental or social objectives, lessening the commitment to organisational sustainability programs. Leadership expectations are other factors influenced by culture in organisations. An example of this is that cultures that lay emphasis on performance-based leadership might oppose sustainability interventions that seem to reduce productivity in the short run. In the meantime, those cultures with humane or ethically oriented leadership might promote sustainable decision-making, but are institutionalised by a poor or corrupt regulatory environment. The other cultural issue is due to the differences in the definitions of sustainability. In other areas, sustainability is discussed as economic stability or corporate charity in lieu of environmental care or labour rights. This results in shallow, compliance-based HR efforts instead of genuine internalisation of the concept of sustainability in the HR strategies. Consequently, HR departments are confronted by the problem of a lack of consistency in the expectations of the stakeholders and low managerial reinforcement.

                       Moreover, the patterns of communication vary greatly in different cultures. The high-context cultures are based on unspoken knowledge, which poses the threat of ambiguity in sustainability policies. Low-context cultures also need documentation and transparency, and this could be a source of friction when international companies are trying to standardise sustainability reporting and HR practices in subsidiaries. Finally, cultural differences also represent a significant obstacle since they determine the perceived legitimacy of sustainable HRM and the behavioural intentions of workers and managers to comply with it. Sustainability policies have a tendency not to substantially change organisations unless they are supported by culturally specific solutions.

(Official, 2025)

1.2 Cost Constraints

Separating sustainable HRM involves a significant investment in systems, training, welfare programs, as well as environmental programs and long-term development of the workforce. In most institutions, particularly those operating in competitive or low-margin businesses, the justification of these costs is a challenge.

            S-HRM products like employee wellbeing programmes, diversity and inclusion training, climate-related workplace enhancements, and sustainable talent developments require monetary investments. With profitability as the main performance indicator, sustainability programmes are viewed as expensive and slow in payoffs. This is more difficult among small and medium enterprises (SMEs), which are not financially endowed with the ability and strategic flexibility to embrace long-term investments. Even the large multinational corporations can put sustainability aside when economic downturns strike and concentrate on reducing costs, restructuring and improving efficiency. Technology adoption is another significant expense factor. Digital HR systems, data analytics, environmental monitoring technologies, and sophisticated training platforms are often needed by sustainable HRM. They are technologies that contribute to transparency and allow achieving sustainability outcomes through better measurement of the results, yet they involve substantial initial funding. Other challenges that organisations in emerging economies may experience include poor digital infrastructure and high costs of importing high technology.

                There are also costs which are related to labour and which make resistance. Sustainable HRM encourages good pay, secure working environments, controlled working hours and empowerment of the workers. In manufacturing industries that rely on cheap labour (manufacturing, agriculture, textile and service outsourcing) improving labour standards can, in turn, significantly raise operational costs. Employers might be scared of their competitive edge being lost, particularly in the global supply chains, where cost efficiency has been an overriding competitive driver. Moreover, training that is associated with sustainability requires time and money. Companies should invest in training their workers on the code of conduct, environmental responsibility, ethical behaviours and being socially conscious. Although these activities are important, they can have short-term effects of decreasing productivity and raising labour costs. The price ceiling is further aggravated by short-termism, where managers focus on short-term financial gains, not on long-term sustainable benefits. This attitude affects the HR budgeting in that it decreases the funds available to invest in strategic sustainability. Consequently, sustainable HRM tends to be under-invested, compartmentalised or symbolic instead of being transformational.

2. Developed and Emerging Economies

It is imperative to understand variations in sustainable HRM problems in different regions in order to come up with region-specific strategies.

Sustainability of HRM in Advanced Economies.

Developed economy like the United States, Western Europe, Australia and Japan tends to enjoy developed infrastructure, consistent regulatory frameworks, and good institutional frameworks promoting sustainability. Governments, consumers, and investors of these regions put pressure on organisations in these areas to embrace ethical and socially responsible practices. The cultural principles of most developed economies, including low power distance, high individualism, and regulatory compliance, provide a culture of priority of the rights of employees, equality in the workplace and environmental responsibility. There is also an increased cost reduction in implementing sustainable HRM due to the increased level of income and the advanced technology.

             However, challenges remain. The long-term sustainability commitments can be limited by the high labour costs, the complex requirements of legal regulations, and the necessity to provide innovative solutions quickly. Moreover, there is internal opposition to change on the part of employees as they do not see the value of using sustainability-based HR systems compared to the traditional performance-based model of HR.

Sustainable HRM in the Emerging Economies.

Other economies that are underdeveloped, like India, Sri Lanka, China, Brazil and Vietnam and some African countries are facing various challenges. Sustainability investments are frequently constrained by economic volatility, lack of financial resources and weaker regulatory frameworks. The companies in these markets often use cheap labour, and it is not easy to enforce fair salaries, high safety measures, or comprehensive well-being practices. The cultural beliefs of the developing economies might emphasise on hierarchy, authority, and job security which can diminish transparency and involvement of employees in the sustainability programs. Also, sustainability can be viewed as a Western concept, which is resisted or not comprehended. Even with these constraints, there are also opportunities that are posed by emerging economies. Sustainability is becoming integrated into the national development agenda of many governments, and better labour practices are being demanded by the local communities. The multinational companies involved in such areas tend to bring with them the international standards of sustainability that affect the local HRM practices.

Comparative Insight

The main distinction is in the availability of resources, cultural demands, and the maturity of the institution. Although developed economies grapple with the complexity of stakeholders and the pressure on innovation, emerging economies are challenged by structural constraints to do with cost, governance, and cultural definitions of sustainability. This leaves a lopsided world in regards to sustainable HRM implementation.

Conclusion

The dissemination of Sustainable Human Resource Management in the world is a complicated environment influenced by culture, financial constraints and lack of alignment with stakeholders. One of the most powerful barriers is cultural differences, as it defines the way people view leadership, sustainability, ethics and collective responsibility. The initiative that is taken as sustainable practice in one country might be seen as the one that is to be resisted in another, which is why global HR initiatives are hard to standardise. Also, the cost is a factor that may constrain the purchase of long-term sustainability programmes by organisations, even when they have the potential to increase employee wellbeing and resilience of organisations due to cost constraints, especially in a competitive or resource-constrained environment. The misalignment of stakeholders is another problem that makes the situation more complicated because various priorities between the leadership, employees, investors, suppliers, and regulators divide the sustainability actions and seldom transform them into symbolic compliance.

                                The comparison between developed and emerging economies helps to explain the variations of these issues in the global context. Developed economies have superior institutions, consumer demands, and technology, which allow a more predictable rollout of sustainable HRM. On the contrary, developing economies have structural weaknesses like poor enforcement mechanisms, lack of financial capacity and cultural or organisational resistance. However, they too can undergo significant development as they can be developed through capacity building, government assistance and by the impact of multinational sustainability standards. All in all, in order to be sustainable in HRM around the world, organisations need to realise these contextual differences and implement adaptive and flexible approaches. The key to the design of a truly sustainable global work force is collaboration among the stakeholders, investment in long-term capacity building, and culturally sensitive HR The latter requires culturally sensitive HR practices. Through strategic management of the barriers, organisations can be able to empower ethical leadership, improve social responsibility, and make a meaningful contribution to global objectives of sustainability.

REFERENCES RELATED TO THE ASSIGNMENT

01. Eccles, R., Ioannou, I. & Serafeim, G. (2014) ‘The impact of corporate sustainability on organisational processes and performance’, Management Science, 60(11), pp. 2835–2857.

02. Budhwar, P. & Debrah, Y. (2013) Human Resource Management in Developing Countries. London: Routledge.

03. Eccles, R. & Klimenko, S. (2019) ‘The investor revolution’, Harvard Business Review, 97(3), pp. 106–116.

04. Ehnert, I. (2009). Sustainable Human Resource Management: A Conceptual and Exploratory Analysis from a Paradox Perspective. Berlin: Springer.

05. Ehnert, I., Parsa, S. & Roper, I. (2016) ‘Sustainability and HRM’, Human Resource Management Review, 26(4), pp. 1–4.

06. Freeman, R. (2010). Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

07. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

08. ILO (2022) World Employment and Social Outlook. Geneva: International Labour Organisation.

09. Jackson, S., Ones, D. & Dilchert, S. (2012). Managing Human Resources for Environmental Sustainability. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

10. Jackson, S., Schuler, R. & Jiang, K. (2014) ‘An aspirational framework for strategic human resource management’, Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), pp. 1–56.

11. Jamali, D., Lund-Thomsen, P. & Jeppesen, S. (2017) ‘SMEs and CSR in developing countries’, Business & Society, 56(1), pp. 11–22

12. Mellahi, K. & Frynas, J. (2015) ‘Global strategic responsibility: Global CSR and performance’, California Management Review, 57(3), pp. 1–20.

13. Miska, C., Szőcs, I. & Schiffinger, M. (2018) ‘Culture’s role in CSR perception’, Journal of Business Ethics, 160(1), pp. 1–20.

14. OECD (2021) OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises. Paris: OECD Publishing.

15. Rana, S. & Malik, A. (2017) ‘Human resource management and sustainability’, Human Resource Management Review, 27(3), pp. 1–12.

16. Renwick, D., Redman, T. & Maguire, S. (2013) ‘Green human resource management’, International Journal of Management Reviews, 15(1), pp. 1–14.

17. UNDP (2021) Human Development Report. New York: United Nations Development Programme.