HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND SUSTAINABILITY LINKAGES: BUILDING THEORY FROM FUNCTIONALIST AND INTERPRETIVE
PARADIGMS
Marcela Ziede
Submitted for the qualification of Doctor of Philosophy Tutor: Professor Federico Niccolini
Università degli Studi di Pisa
Dipartimento di Economia e Management PhD Economia Aziendale e Management
Abstract
Human resource management (HRM) has an important responsibility in supporting higher levels of business sustainability development (BSD). In the past decade, traditional strategic HRM focused on economic goals has been supplemented by environmental and social imperatives, framing a new approach called sustainable HRM (SHRM). My research addresses HRM and sustainability linkages.
Little research has been carried out on how human resource (HR) professionals’ roles can fit with a spectrum of levels of BSD. In addition, the communication of HRM supporting
sustainability has been explored privileging a quantitative approach. I argue that the relationship can be understood in a complementary way through qualitative and temporal analysis and that different scientific paradigms are needed to enrich the knowledge. The research is structured as a collection of three scientific articles.
First, three typologies of HRM professionals’ roles for three levels of BSD are built grounded on roles and paradox theories through a methodological roadmap expressing inherently paradoxical roles and mindsets. This first article is based on a post-positivist, functionalist and universalist approaches.
Secondly, a visual rhetoric analysis of photographs in sustainability reports is conducted in a single case study to interpret the messages embedded in the disclosure of the relationship of HRM and sustainability. Finally, the analysis is complemented by a temporal visual rhetoric analysis, which enables us to identify the themes of capabilities, relationships, vulnerability, happiness and national identity that go beyond the standardization of annual reports. The dynamic analysis suggests that the evolution of the disclosure is dependent on contingency in
contradiction with sustainability commitment. The second and third articles are underpinned on a subjectivist, constructivist and contextual approach.
This research concludes that there is a need to update the HRM roles for BSD and that the relationship between HRM and sustainability is the result of ideologies, contextual and contingent features that are hidden in visual artefacts.
My significant contribution to the knowledge is that this research expands the SHRM approach by adopting functionalist and constructivist paradigms, as well as offering methodologies for typology building, unique visual rhetoric procedure and temporal analysis, bridging macro and organizational levels. It raises unexpected issues such as organizational myth making,
legitimation of practices, and political and colonial heritages for discussion among practitioners, corporate governance and policy makers.
This research illuminates the need to work simultaneously in normative and interpretative perspectives of mindsets to advance in a SHRM approach for the good of the planet.
Acknowledgments
I would like to express my sincere appreciation to those who directly or indirectly helped me through my PhD journey at the University of Pisa. It would never have been possible to achieve my research without their guidance, motivation and support.
I am grateful to my supervisor Professor Federico Niccolini who advised, supported and oriented me during my research and encouraged me to follow my personal interests.
I am also grateful to the former Director of this PhD, Professor Marco Allegrini, who received me for the first time in the University of Pisa and encouraged me in my application process in collaboration with Professors Giuseppe D’Onza and Maria Cristina Bonti who oriented me in the initial design of the research project. I am also grateful to other scholars who gave me feedback and advice on my research, in particular Marcia Annisette from York University, Ingrid Fulmer from University of South Australia, Martina Gianecchini from Padova University, Martin Hilb from University of St. Gallen, Marie-Christine Liable from the Institute for Employment Research – Germany, James Lockhart from Massey University, Álvaro López Cabrales from Pablo Olavide University, Michael Muller-Camen from WU - Vienna University of Economics and Business, Jaap Paauwe from Tilburg University, Jonas Puck from WU - Vienna University of Economics and Business and Marcus Wagner from Augsburg University.
Various institutions have made this PhD possible, above all the Universidad Católica del Norte in Chile, my alma mater and sponsor, where I am a lecturer, and the Chilean Ministry of Education who gave me a grant through CONICYT PAI/INDUSTRIA 79090016.
I appreciate all the academics, administrators, colleagues, friends of University of Pisa, Florence and Siena who helped with generosity.
Finally, I am grateful to my family, specially my husband and my two children who supported me during this whole journey. My appreciation also to important women who gave me
unconditional support, my sisters Patricia, Monica and Ximena, my sister-in-law Elena and my English friend Clare Dickson.
Table of contents
Abstract ... i
Acknowledgments... iii
Table of contents ... v
List of tables ... xii
List of figures ... xiii
List of photographs ... xv
Chapter 1: Introduction to the research and overview ... 1
Introduction ... 1
1.1. Broad setting of the research ... 2
1.2. The narrow setting of HRM and sustainability research ... 3
1.3. Two areas of research ... 7
1.3.1. Bridging organizational and macro level context ... 7
1.3.2. Disclosure of the phenomenon... 10
1.4. Articles overview ... 13
1.4.1. First article ... 13
1.4.2. Second article ... 14
1.4.3. Third article ... 15
1.6. Structure overview ... 17
Conclusions ... 18
Chapter 2: Research approach ... 20
Introduction ... 20
2.1. Key concepts of philosophy of sciences ... 22
2.1.1. Paradigm in sciences ... 22
2.1.1.1. Paradigm in social sciences ... 22
2.1.1.2. The three core questions ... 23
a) Ontology ... 23
b) Epistemology ... 24
c) Methodology ... 24
2.1.2. Types of research philosophy and research paradigms ... 24
2.1.3. Toward a multiparadigm inquiry approach ... 27
2.2. Three articles, two research paradigms ... 29
2.2.1. Article 1 Post positivist – functionalist article... 29
2.2.1.1. Ontology ... 29
2.2.1.2. Epistemology ... 30
2.2.1.3. Human nature ... 31
2.2.1.4. Modes of theorizing ... 32
2.2.2. Article 2 and 3 Constructivist – interpretative articles ... 33 2.2.2.1. Ontology ... 33 2.2.2.2. Epistemology ... 34 2.2.2.3. Human nature ... 35 2.2.2.4. Modes of theorizing ... 36 2.2.2.5. Methodology ... 37
2.3. Comparing main paradigms decisions ... 37
Conclusions ... 42
Chapter 3: The collection of articles ... 44
Introduction ... 44
3.1. Article 1 ... 46
Matching HR professionals’ roles with business sustainability development: typologies of paradoxical roles ... 46 Abstract ... 46 Introduction ... 47 1. Literature review ... 50 1.1. The foundations of SHRM ... 50 1.2. Four approaches to SHRM ... 52 2. Typology building ... 60 2.1. Intermediate stage ... 63
2.2. Strong sustainability stage ... 64
2.3. Very strong sustainability stage ... 65
3. Discussion ... 66
Conclusions ... 70
3.2. Article 2 ... 73
Marrying Human Resource Management and Sustainability: The visual rhetorical analysis of a match made in heaven. ... 73
Abstract ... 73
Introduction ... 74
1. Literature review ... 78
1.1. Barthes’ visual rhetoric ... 78
1.2. Analysing photographs in corporate reports ... 82
2. Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) ... 84
3. CODELCO background ... 85
4. Method ... 87
4.1. First phase: Categorical analysis ... 88
4.2. Second phase: Connotative analysis ... 89
4.3. Third phase: Rhetorical visual analysis ... 90
5. Findings... 91
5.2. Connotative findings... 92
5.3. Rhetorical findings ... 102
6. Discussion ... 107
Conclusions ... 113
3.3. Article 3 ... 118
When photographs verbalize the rise and fall of HRM linked with sustainability: a longitudinal case study ... 118
Abstract ... 118
Introduction ... 119
1. Literature review ... 121
1.1. Barthes’ visual rhetoric ... 123
1.2. Barthesian Theory applied in sustainability reports ... 124
2. Case background: CODELCO and GRI ... 125
3. Method ... 127
4. Findings... 129
4.1. General findings ... 129
4.2. First Phase: Categorical ... 130
4.3. Second Phase: Content Analysis, Denotative and Connotative ... 132
4.4. Third Phase: Rhetorical analysis ... 137
Conclusions ... 146
Conclusions Chapter 3 ... 149
Chapter 4: Conclusions ... 154
Introduction ... 154
4.1. Summary of the chapters ... 155
4.1.1. Summary of Chapter 1 ... 155
4.1.2. Summary of Chapter 2 ... 157
4.1.3. Summary of Chapter 3 ... 157
4.2. Connecting the collection ... 158
4.3. Contributions to the knowledge ... 162
4.3.1. Theoretical contributions ... 163
4.3.2 Empirical contributions ... 165
4.3.3 Practical contributions ... 165
4.4. Contributions to the discipline ... 167
4.5. Limitations ... 169
4.6. Self-reflective exercise ... 171
4.7. Future research and recommendations... 174
4.8. Impact ... 176
Final statements ... 180
Appendix A ... 212 Appendix B ... 213
List of tables
Table 1 Juxtaposing paradigms approaches in social sciences ... 26
Table 2 Core assumptions behind paradigms in social sciences ... 26
Table 3 Main paradigms differences and commonalities in the collection... 38
Table 4 Differences in the theory-building approaches among the three articles and commonalities in the collection ... 40
Table 5 Paradigm position among articles and practical issues ... 41
Table 6 Basic data description ... 92
Table 7 Characterization of internal and external people ... 93
Table 8 Characterization of external people... 94
Table 9 Example of rhetoric analysis in identity theme ... 103
Table 10 Example of rhetoric analysis in vulnerability theme ... 104
Table 11 Example of rhetoric analysis in capabilities theme ... 105
Table 12 Example of rhetoric analysis in relationships theme ... 106
Table 13 Example of rhetoric analysis in happiness theme ... 107
Table A 1 GRI 400 social standards ... 212
List of figures
Figure 1 The structure of Chapter 1... 2
Figure 2 The structure of the document. ... 18
Figure 3 The structure of Chapter 2... 21
Figure 4 Locating the articles within an ontological and epistemological spectrum. ... 39
Figure 5 The structure of Chapter 3 and pattern of the articles. ... 45
Figure 6 Different labels in HRM. ... 51
Figure 7 Theoretical model. ... 60
Figure 8 The procedure to create the typology. ... 62
Figure 9 The three typologies of roles. ... 63
Figure 10 Distribution per year of photographs and pages. ... 92
Figure 11 Connotative codes map. ... 95
Figure 12 Connotative artefacts map. ... 96
Figure 13 Connotative artefacts map. ... 108
Figure 14 Evolution of the number of photographs and pages. ... 129
Figure 15 Triple bottom line distribution. ... 130
Figure 16 Social standards disclosed... 131
Figure 17 Evolution of photographs of internal and external people. ... 132
Figure 18 Distribution of internal and external people. ... 133
Figure 19 Evolution of types of employees... 133
Figure 20 Evolution of types of external people. ... 134
Figure 21 Distribution of types of external people. ... 134
Figure 23 Importance of main themes... 136
Figure 24 Articles findings summary. ... 150
Figure 25 The structure of Chapter 4... 154
Figure 26 The collection with normative and interpretative stance. ... 159
List of photographs
Photograph 1 Identity ... 97
Photograph 2 Faceless ... 98
Photograph 3 Men next to giants ... 98
Photograph 4 Capabilities ... 100
Photograph 5 Children playing at being a miner ... 100
Photograph 6 Relationships... 101
Photograph 7 Happiness ... 102
Photograph 8 Boy riding a horse ... 137
Photograph 9 Man riding a horse ... 138
Photograph 10 Men next to giants 1 ... 138
Photograph 11 Men next to giants 2 ... 139
Photograph 12 Boy at breakfast ... 139
Photograph 13 Workers finishing their shift 1 ... 141
Chapter 1: Introduction to the research and overview
Introduction
This introductory chapter represents the background of the research study and outlines the main theoretical features proposed.
Human Resource Management and Sustainability linkages is the topic of interest in this research. In this chapter the topic is exposed with several research questions and problems that are raised and addressed through a collection of three articles. This is followed by the reasons that justify the need to deal with the research, and by an overview of my articles with their contributions to the knowledge in the new approach of linking human resource management and sustainability. At the end of this chapter, some considerations, a condensation of each chapter and the general structure of the document are announced. This first chapter is structured following a sequence of sections that obey to specific objectives depicted in Figure 1.
Figure 1 The structure of Chapter 1.
Source: own elaboration.
1.1.Broad setting of the research
July 2019 was the warmest month ever on Earth (NOAA, 2019) and on 29th of the same month the “Earth Overshoot day” came earlier than any other year, because the ecosystems’ regeneration capacity was lower than humans’ resources exploitation rate (Global Foot Print Network, 2019). Besides, today almost 790 million people are living on less than US$1.9 a day (United Nations, 2018). These are examples of some global problems of sustainability
by business leaders worldwide (George et al., 2016). However, what does sustainability development understood as the “… development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (Brundtland, 1987, p. 41) have to do with human resource management?
Inspired by United Nations initiatives of preserving the planet and fostering human development, organizations are more aware and concerned, and in many cases are taking
responsibility to work in favour of sustainability development. They are introducing core values of sustainability and corporate sustainability in their strategy, with the intention to impact positively on economic/financial, human/social and environmental outcomes, called the triple bottom line (Elkington, 1998). This corporate sustainability strategy is diffused in all
organizational levels, and human resource management has not been the exception. Boudreau and Ramstad (2005) described a shift from the classic economic profit mindset toward a new sustainability perspective and we may be witnessing this change now.
In effect, the field of HRM which was dominated in the last 30 years by a strategic focus (Jackson et al., 2014; Kramar, 2014) has been shifting in the last decade towards a new approach called sustainable human resource management (SHRM), (Kramar, 2014). In this context, this research addresses the emerging relationship between HRM and sustainability. The research explores HRM and sustainability linkages oriented to satisfying imperatives in the macrolevel like the “Grand challenges”.
1.2.The narrow setting of HRM and sustainability research
Macke and Genari (2019) identify a few authors who were pioneers in introducing the link of HRM and sustainability, like for instance Zaugg, Blum &Thom (2001), Gollan (2000),
Wilkinson, Hill & Gollan (2001), Avery & Bergsteiner (2010) and Muller Christ & Remer in 1999, cited by Macke & Genari (2019).
Mariappanadar (2003) conceptualized the relation of HRM and sustainability through sustainable Human Resource strategy ahead of time by defining it as “the management of human resources to meet the optimal needs of the company and community of present without
compromising the ability to meet the needs of the future” (p. 910).
Later, and in line with the precedent contribution, Ehnert, Parsa, Roper, Wagner and Muller-Camen (2015) stated that:
Sustainable HRM can be defined as the adoption of HRM strategies and practices that enable the achievement of financial, social and ecological goals, with an impact inside and outside of the organization and over a long-term time horizon while controlling for unintended side effects and negative feedback. (p. 90)
More recently, Mariappanadar (2019) revisits his definition pointing out that SHRM:
is about HR systems or bundles of HRM practices that engage employees to synthesise increased organisational performance outcome while simultaneously reducing the unsustainable impacts on the natural environment as well as on employees and their families (i.e. stakeholders)1. (p. 15)
These three definitions have some commonalities, they all share the statement of the Brundtland commission (Brundtland, 1987) and their authors are among the most influential scholars in the SHRM field (Macke & Genari, 2019). Furthermore, these definitions are appropriate to understand SHRM as a new approach, and why SHRM is moving away from strategic HRM or is an extension of strategic HRM (Ehnert, 2009a). Two reasons explain the
distinctiveness of the new approach. First, SHRM differs by taking into account multiple goals simultaneously, those pertaining to the triple bottom line (Elkington, 1998) that are creating tensions and conflicts. Second, SHRM is concerned with the social and environmental impact inside and outside the boundaries of the organization with a long-term perspective and the negative externalities and feedback control (Ehnert et al., 2015). More recently Ren and Jackson (2019) have compared strategic HRM and SHRM philosophies through nine elements of
institutional logics (e.g., core concerns, locus of responsibility, time horizon, direction of influence, internal and external type of coordination, agency degree, role of change agent and relation to sustainability goals). Under this understanding, there is a “HRM philosophy that promotes a tripartite approach to sustainability, showing equal concern for economic, environmental and social performance” (Ren & Jackson, 2019, p. 1).
In the evolution of the young SHRM approach, still considered in its emerging phase (Stankevičiūtė & Savanevičienė, 2019), we are seeing a growing interest among scholars (Aust et al., 2019; Bush, 2019; Ehnert et al., 2015; Zink, 2014) and according to Elsevier (as cited in (Podgorodnichenko et al., 2019) and Takeuchi, Osamu, Lahoti, & Gondor (2017) we are
witnessing a tangible phase of accelerated growth in sustainability studies, especially since 2011 with the adoption of increasing cross-disciplinary perspectives. Moreover, more than 66% all of the scientific production about SHRM was launched between 2013 and 2018 (Macke & Genari, 2019).
On the other hand, it has been recognized that “HR has an important role to play in sustainability” (Boudreau & Ramstad, 2005, p. 134) in creating and implementing sustainable business strategies (Cohen et al., 2012; Dubois & Dubois, 2012; Jamali et al., 2015) and HRM professionals are key actors in promoting and supporting a “sustainability mindset” (Ehnert &
Harry, 2012, p. 232) in business organizations, and participating actively in business sustainability development.
This new HRM approach is still in its early stages (De Prins et al., 2014; Stankevičiūtė & Savanevičienė, 2018) and may be associated with other labels like responsible HRM or green HRM, although they are often used interchangeably. While green HRM supports environmental business initiatives (Jabbour et al., 2010, 2012; Jackson et al., 2011; Jackson & Seo, 2010; Renwick et al., 2008, 2016), and responsible HRM attends to issues from a social perspective (Cohen et al., 2012), SHRM includes both labels and also incorporates the balancing of the triple bottom line concepts (Elkington, 1998) integrated by economic, environmental and social goals (Ehnert, 2009a; Ehnert et al., 2014; Guerci & Pedrini, 2014; Zaugg et al., 2001).
Furthermore, SHRM can be understood in different ways according to the focus of attention. While a first line emphasizes the macrolevel, that is to say the organization’s social, economic and environmental aspects, so what we have called the “Grand challenges”, the second line has a micro and meso level focus, i.e. HRM systems to manage inherent complexity of the workforce like skills scarcity, aging, health among others that are relevant to ensure the
sustainability of HRM system and in turn the continuity of organization (Ehnert & Harry, 2012; Taylor et al., 2012). This research adopts a macrolevel perspective in the scenario of the triple bottom line and “Grand challenges”.
Once the general setting of sustainability and HRM linkages has been exposed, it is time to highlight specific knowledges that should be addressed in the research. Two main areas of research are explained, the first related to bridging organizational and macro level concerns, and the second related to the disclosure of the phenomenon.
1.3. Two areas of research
1.3.1. Bridging organizational and macro level context
In relation to the organizational context, HR managers are used to being “victims of ambiguity” (Legge, 1978) immersed in vicious cycles, embedded in tensions as a consequence of demands in conflict that “seem logical in isolation but absurd and irrational when appearing simultaneously” (Lewis, 2000, p. 760), called paradoxes. HR managers constantly navigate among paradoxes.
In the case of SHRM, the main paradoxes that HR managers are facing are related to conflicting goals such as long-term versus short-term, economic versus developing social legitimacy and human resources in a consumption perspective versus a reproduction perspective (Ehnert, 2009a). The use of paradox theory in HRM and sustainability linkages has been applied to understand how HRM managers, instead of fighting against one goal in detriment of another, should find a balance and navigate in this territory (Aust et al., 2015, 2017; Ehnert, 2009a; Guerci & Carollo, 2016; Keegan et al., 2019; Sheehan et al., 2014).
In relation to a macro level analysis, recent developments in sustainability theory have identified, both theoretically (Dyllick & Muff, 2016; Landrum, 2017) and empirically (Landrum & Ohsowski, 2018), that business sustainability development is not represented by a single static stage. On the contrary, sustainability can be opened on different levels, as steps or stages that organizations may reach, and HRM cannot ignore the existence of a spectrum of different
business sustainability development stages. Prior research about HR professionals’ roles (Boselie & Paauwe, 2005; Caldwell, 2003; Legge, 1978; Macintosh et al., 2000; Schuler, 1990; Storey, 1992; Tyson, 1987) and specially the business partner role (Ulrich, 1997; Ulrich & Beatty, 2001) do consider a strategic approach and tensions in HR practitioners, but they neither explicitly
adopt the sustainability development concept nor a spectrum of different levels. Furthermore, Ulrich and colleagues have updated their proposal of four roles by applying paradox theory and stating that HR professionals have 9 roles as “leaders as paradox navigators” (Ulrich et al., 2017). More recently, the proposal of HRM roles in corporate social responsibility (CSR) and sustainability (De Stefano et al., 2018) constitutes an update to HRM roles in that context, despite still being static.
Thus, this research seeks to close this first gap by defining roles for HR professionals adapted to different levels of sustainability, taking into account their inherent tensions of balancing paradoxical goals. These roles represent a mechanism of bridging organizational and macrolevel global challenges that should orient managers’ ethics and endeavor. Hence, the first research question is as follows:
Which expected roles of HR professionals are needed to adequately support business toward sustainability in its different stages?
The choice of paradox theory in this research to build the HR professionals’ roles is based on the evidence that in management and organization research, paradox theory has enriched many areas (e.g., change management, innovation, organizational identity, sensemaking, decision-making, leadership) and the research about HRM and sustainability linkages is not an exception (Ehnert, 2009a; Ehnert et al., 2014; Podgorodnichenko et al., 2019; Ren & Jackson, 2019). For a recent review of paradox theory in different fields see De Keyser, Guiette & Vandenbempt (2019). In this research, paradox theory is used as a means, with a pragmatic focus (De Keyser et al., 2019). It is chosen because the phenomenon of study is related to an inherent ambiguity of managers’ actions. This research intends to expand the understanding of the relationship between HRM and
the sustainability phenomenon, generating theoretical contributions and provoking new insights in scholarly discussion.
Four reasons justified the need to close this gap of mismatching current HR professionals’ roles with higher levels of BSD.
First, the impact of HRM practices and systems supporting corporate sustainability on employees, on multi-stakeholders, on local social or environmental contexts (Renwick et al., 2016) has been positively recognized, and it has the potential to increase and lead impacts for the “Grand challenges” integrating even line managers. Second, because the global business context has evolved in the last two decades and is not the same anymore, hazards and uncertainties are framing the setting of competing demands and intensifying others. Awareness and commitment of business towards “Grand challenges”, e.g. inequalities, poverty, climate change or biodiversity among others, are requisite to the crusade of reversing damage and having the ability to take action. Actually, the complexity of balancing stakeholders’ interests, in a broad sense of multi-stakeholders (Beer et al., 2015), is part of addressing these “Grand challenges”. I acknowledge Smith and Tracey’s (2016) arguments that organizations are called on to be active actors in contributing to tackle these issues and are both the problem and the solution, and HRM is called on to play an active role as well. HR managers are recognized to be change agents, as even more recently Ren and Jackson (2019) expressed that HRM is an institutional entrepreneurship for sustainable business organizations. Besides, the commitment of business with sustainability issues is also an important factor to attract potential employees (Gong et al., 2018; Lis, 2012) and develop positive employee work outcomes (Shen & Benson, 2016).
Third, practitioners are receptive and in search of guidance and discussion about the uncertain context and “Grand challenges”. The HRM function is supposed to offer support to sustainability
and should reframe its own roles from an outside-in perspective, as an update to external and internal pressures to legitimate itself. Furthermore, reframing its own roles, the HR professionals should review other managerial positions. In this same line, academia and professionals’
associations are examining how to improve curricula, counselling, or orientation using updated material. Finally, HR managers have the privilege and the professional and ethical responsibility to influence organizations’ members and multi-stakeholders to trigger a change in the mindsets for the good of their own organizations as well as beyond these boundaries, for the good of society as a whole. The definition of roles is a first step of defining a roadmap to BSD and foster the discussion. I argue that without declarations such as the definitions of roles, the pursuit of higher levels of sustainability is an illusion and a responsibility avoidance.
1.3.2. Disclosure of the phenomenon
In an empirical domain, sustainability reports, broadly diffused among large companies in the last two decades (Ernst & Young, 2016), are a communicational tool to disclose
sustainability issues of the triple bottom line where HRM contribution is explicitly exposed through the social component and through standards like the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI).
External pressures explain the adoption of corporate sustainability of practices in favour of sustainability promoted by global organizations like the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) or GRI to develop business strategy incorporating internal or external stakeholders in a broad sense, e.g. employees, customers, local community, supply chain,
employees’ families (Beer et al., 2015; Mariappanadar, 2019).
These reports are already standardized in their content and structure (e.g., GRI). Scholars have recently conducted the first quantitative empirical study to analyze and assess HRM
embracing sustainability among large companies using mainly content analysis and comparing organizational attributes (Ehnert et al., 2015). This study recognized the need to complement quantitative analysis of reports in a more detailed and textual analysis of full reports to deepen the knowledge and explore differences among countries or cultures as well as to introduce the temporal analysis of data.
In this regard, so far scholars have neglected to capture dynamisms, implicit mindsets, ideologies or cultural features that are not controlled by the standardization of corporate reports, especially using visual language as the object of analysis, instead of the text analysis already initiated in the HRM and sustainability linkages study (Ehnert et al., 2015). Messages embedded in the
disclosure of the relationship of HRM and sustainability in sustainability reports and their dynamism have not been hitherto explored. Thus, this research attempts to close these two gaps by interpreting messages about ideologies implicit in the communication of HRM and
sustainability linkages and comparing them over time. Two research questions guide the investigation:
How does visual rhetoric contribute to the communication of HRM supporting sustainability?
How has visual communication about HRM supporting sustainability changed in the last two decades of annual sustainability reports?
The adoption of an interpretative paradigm to raise the messages embedded in visual artefacts as a core ontological decision lays on ways of capturing the perception of reality that are unique. In effect, to find out the messages, the research drawns upon visual rhetoric analysis as its main observation lens, based on French semiologist Roland Barthes. In organizational studies, Barthesian theory has been applied in several areas, especially by Davison (2002, 2007,
2008, 2010, 2014) and the analysis of photographs as objects of analysis in corporate reports has received increasing attention (Greenwood et al., 2018), but it still remains uninvestigated in relation with the HRM and sustainability phenomenon.
Four main reasons justified the need to close these gaps about the disclosure of visual communication of HR and sustainability linkages and its evolution.
First, empirical findings are needed to expand our understanding of HRM supporting corporate sustainability disclosed in annual reports as a business strategy. The interpretation of visual artefacts enables us to dive into a specific cultural setting and identify how its particularities are framing the messages. It provides the means to capture abstract or complex ideas, especially those that cannot be expressed with written language and which exert influence on stakeholders. The longitudinal dimension adds a broad understanding and historical connections with internal or external events that can be elaborated.
Second, looking at the visual disclosure facilitates taking a critical position. Aware that the disclosure is standardized in sustainability annual reports, qualitative inquiry is a way to capture dominant ideologies and mindsets that are beneath the surface. Interpreting hidden messages can stimulate the debate about whether the modes of business as usual or business in search of a higher level of sustainability are effective beyond the financial imperatives. In consequence, planned organizational change and taking responsibility may become imperative.
Third, raising national and cultural heritages and industrial sectorial settings is a
counter-proposal to standardization and the rightful humanization of people in a protective sense. It is an expression of concerns about the important asset that people represent.
Finally, interpreting mindsets and ideologies or raising myth making and identity is stimulating stakeholders to recognise new issues and calls on them to look at visual artefacts beyond the initial naïve aesthetic communicative add-ons.
1.4.Articles overview
As mentioned, this research investigates the relationship between HRM and sustainability, and three areas of research have been identified. These areas are translated operationally in three articles. In the next section an overview of the articles and their contribution to the knowledge is outlined.
1.4.1. First article
For the research question “Which expected roles of HR professionals are needed to adequately support business toward sustainability in its different stages?”, a first article was elaborated, titled “Matching HR professionals’ roles with business sustainability development: typologies of paradoxical roles”.
This article is a theoretical research about how typologies of changing roles for different steps of business sustainability development are built with a post positivist approach, underpinned mainly in roles theory and paradox theory.
The typologies reflect expected roles with a normative orientation drawn on an outside-in perspective dictated by the consideration of the “Grand challenges”. The typologies do not offer the deployment of specific skills or competencies; that is another domain and remains at a theoretical level of development that requires future empirical research.
By building the typologies, the research contributes to expanding the field of sustainable HR management by translating stages of business sustainability in expected behaviours,
highlighting HR function responsibility in leading sustainability, and inviting practitioners and academia to debate how HR professionals’ roles are shaped by their own mindsets or paradigm of sustainability.
The research contributes methodologically to a roadmap of defining which paradoxes are considered relevant for each stage and delving deeper into the mindsets of the stage useful for heuristics purposes.
1.4.2. Second article
The following research question, “How does visual rhetoric contribute to the
communication of HRM supporting sustainability?”, corresponds to the second article titled “Marrying HRM and Sustainability: The visual rhetorical analysis of a match made in heaven”. This article is an empirical research, a single case study, that uses a constructivist approach to interpret messages embedded in visual artefacts like photographs to discover the messages perceived in the disclosure of the link between HRM and sustainability in a large representative company with a clear negative impact on the environment. The single case study is CODELCO (the National Copper Corporation), a Chilean state-owned company, the world’s largest copper mining company. In this article, the theoretical framework is grounded in Barthes’ visual rhetoric theory and the method adopted consisted of three phases, categorical analysis, connotative
analysis and rhetorical visual analysis, using deductive, inductive and abductive approaches inspired in Greenwood et al. (2018) methodology. The findings are expressed through main messages disclosed as patterns of themes. CODELCO’s annual sustainability reports were
considered as secondary data, a total of 18 reports from 2000 to 2018 with a total of 1639
photographs. The analysis considered the universe of photographs as units of analysis and it was assisted by NVivo 12 Plus.
The article does not represent an assessment of the sustainability performance of the company or an evaluation of its CEO or sustainability management. Besides, the article neither expresses judgements of the transparency or the effective compliance to strategic definitions, nor does it state whether the reports are accurate.
This second article makes several contributions. First, this research contributes to the knowledge of the nascent approach of SHRM with empirical findings that highlight how the industrial sector, the national and cultural features are framing the mindsets and ideologies about HRM supporting sustainability. Second, the research contributes to expanding those areas of research of visual studies that have been neglecting HRM and sustainability. Third, it contributes to a critical understanding of HRM supporting sustainability where images transcend the
globalization of linguistic standardization of reports, and it contains messages of ideologies and cultural myths that are naively presented to avoid sustainability contradictions. Fourth, the research contributes to distancing the analysis of HRM and sustainability linkages from a
constructivist paradigm, challenging the ontological, epistemological and methodological stances adopted so far. Finally, it contributes to guiding practitioners in the reflection and formulation of disclosure strategies.
1.4.3. Third article
The following research question, “How has visual communication about HRM supporting sustainability changed in the last two decades of annual sustainability reports?”, is guiding the
third article titled “When photographs verbalize the rise and fall of HRM linked with sustainability: A longitudinal case study”.
This article is another empirical paper, based on a constructivist approach, using Barthes’ visual rhetoric theory but with a temporal dimension in the analysis. The case study is the
company CODELCO. The analysis is conducted on 17 reports corresponding to annual
sustainability reports under the GRI standards from 2001-2017. In this case, 1594 photographs are analysed through a categorical, content and visual rhetoric three-phase process, using Barthes’ theory. GRI standards are used as a priori categories, and non-a priori categories of disclosure about HRM were also deployed. Looking at the disclosure of social standards and using the findings of the themes of the second article, the quest intended to uncover patterns of changing disclosure over the 17 years included in the study.
It is important to note that this research limits the expectations of the reader in the same way as the second article does. Besides, in the temporal focus the qualitative analysis has been privileged, even if basic descriptive statistical analyses were carried out. This research neither performs a correlative analysis between the findings of the state-owned company and the political trends of the country, nor is it an assessment of the potential instrumentalization of the company.
This third article offers several contributions. First, this research contributes to the knowledge of the nascent approach of SHRM with comparative temporal empirical findings in a single case representative of an industry with a negative impact on the environment. Second, the article contributes to the knowledge by discussing whether the long-term vision needed in sustainability is effective beyond the disclosure of standards, and looking at how local culture is expressed through the visual over time. Third, the research contributes to the visual rhetoric
theory and visual studies by adding a dynamic temporal analysis to the current static approach. Fourth, the research also contributes from an interpretative subjectivist paradigm to expand the knowledge and methods in the study of HRM and sustainability. Fifth, it contributes in guiding practitioners, auditors and GRI frameworks to discuss whether the standards may be comparable over time and to define the role of visual artefacts in the reports.
1.5.Researcher considerations
This section aims to present main assumptions that guided the research and some considerations.
I argue that societal and environmental stakeholders and other multi-stakeholders play an important role in framing HRM, and they should be considered beyond the imperative of the traditional economic performance of the firm. Besides, I am aware that businesses have a responsibility to make a real contribution to the solution of “Grand challenges”. They also benefit from this contribution in the long-term.
As a consequence of the knowledge that this research intends to build, I am aware that my assumptions about organizational reality and how the knowledge can be obtained are framing the ontology and epistemology of the focus adopted and at the same time are influenced by my academic background, experiences, biography, cultural knowledge and moral positions. Chapter 2 aims to expose the main assumptions of the research philosophy.
1.6.Structure overview
In the next chapter two philosophical research approaches for the three papers are exposed and compared. The third chapter contains three sections, each one dedicated to a single article presented in a journal article format. Finally, the fourth chapter offers general conclusions and the research contributions and avenues for future investigations. This structure is presented in Figure 2.
Figure 2 The structure of the document.
Source: own elaboration
Conclusions
This first introductory chapter has outlined the main background of the research. First the general setting where the research is located was defined followed secondly by the specific setting of HRM and sustainability. Third, two areas of research were developed. The first
detected a lack in the literature about HR professionals’ roles that are not aligned with the new imperatives of “Grand challenges” in BSD. The second area focused on the visual disclosure of HRM & sustainability that has been overlooked in empirical studies and its temporal analysis as well. Once the three gaps were identified, three research questions were declared together with the justification of the importance of closing the gaps. Fourth, an overview of the three articles with their contributions were summarized, followed by some considerations and finally the structure of the whole document.
Chapter 2: Research approach
Introduction
This chapter aims to delve into commonly hidden or implicit core elements of this
research, the path in the philosophy of sciences I have already taken. Unearthing decisions about the creation of knowledge which underpin my beliefs that are beyond true or false statements is crucial to understand how my research is articulated. Early decisions of philosophy of sciences stances are impacting my social science paradigms. Moreover, because several scholars’
frameworks coexist to present paradigms, my research can be classified into different paradigms depending on the authors, and of course it is grounded in the problem of inquiry. Again, by describing my research paradigm using language I am adhering to a specific framework, especially those more commonly referred by social sciences researchers that are more familiar with the problem of the phenomenon of study, explained in the next paragraphs.
Defining my scientific research philosophy implies a verbalization of my thoughts that are inspiring and framing the knowledge building in the topic in which I am interested. In any research philosophy, there are three main dimensions that are known to be addressed: ontology, epistemology and methodology. Answers to these are indeed configurating my research
paradigm. In this research, structured in three articles that relay in very different research questions, my ontological position is far from being homogeneous. On the contrary, I generate two papers that share similar ontological assumptions and a third one with strong opposite beliefs about the reality. In other words, I am positioning myself in disparate “competing” paradigms because different answers are accorded in the articles.
However, before clarifying what assumptions underly the articles, it is important to start by defining key concepts employed in this chapter such as paradigm in sciences and social sciences and a multiparadigm approach.
This chapter is structured as follows. First some basic concepts of scientific research philosophy are exposed, followed by the components of the research paradigm organized by each scientific article and finishing with a comparison of main decisions embraced. The structure of this second chapter is depicted in Figure 3.
Figure 3 The structure of Chapter 2.
2.1.Key concepts of philosophy of sciences 2.1.1. Paradigm in sciences
Since Thomas Kuhn published his seminal book “The structure of scientific revolutions” (1962), the concept of paradigm has spread in all disciplines. The book “represented a watershed in how scientists viewed the progression of science” (Shepherd & Challenger, 2013, p. 225), introducing the concepts of radical and incremental change in the evolution of sciences. While a radical change happens when a community of scientists abandons and replaces the established core paradigm and adopts a new one, the incremental change is the product of adding
complementary elements to the taken for granted paradigm.
Several understandings are retained to define scientific paradigm in Kuhn’s book, one being: “A paradigm is what the members of a scientific community share, and, conversely, a scientific community consists of men who share a paradigm” (Kuhn, 1996, p. 175). This definition is one among 21 identified by scholars (Masterman, 1970) who acknowledge the difficulty to unify understandings and point out the elusive character and lack of security (Hassard, 1993) of the concept. Although a review of commonalities or differences in Kuhn’s definitions is beyond the scope of this section, I am adopting a definition applied to social sciences that is exhibited in the next section.
2.1.1.1.Paradigm in social sciences
In this research a paradigm in social sciences is rooted in Guba and Lincoln’s definition. They conceive “paradigms as basic belief systems based on Ontological, Epistemological, and Methodological Assumptions. A paradigm may be viewed as a set of basic beliefs (or metaphysics) that deals with ultimates or first principles. It represents a worldview that defines, for its holder,
the nature of the “world”, the individual’s place in it, and the range of possible relationships to that world and its parts, as for example cosmologies and theologies do” (Guba & Lincoln, 1994, p. 105).
Complementing this definition, it is worth recognizing three senses of paradigm elaborated by Morgan (1980) who is considered an influential scholar in social sciences which are defined:
(1) as a complete view of reality, or way of seeing; (2) as relating to the social organization of science in terms of schools of thought connected with particular kinds of scientific achievements, and (3) as relating to the concrete use of specific kinds of tools and texts for the process of scientific puzzle solving. (p. 606)
2.1.1.2.The three core questions a) Ontology
My ontological approach is explained through answering the key question posed by Burrell and Morgan (1979):
whether the 'reality' to be investigated is external to the individual – imposing itself on individual consciousness from without - or the product of individual consciousness; whether 'reality' is of an 'objective' nature, or the product of individual cognition; whether 'reality' is a given 'out there' in the world, or the product of one's mind. (p. 01)
In Guba and Lincoln’s words, the ontological question is summarized by “what is the form and nature of reality and, therefore, what is there that can be known about it?” (1994, p. 108).
b) Epistemology
My epistemological approach is stressed by key questions such as “what is the nature of the relationship between the knower or would-be knower and what can be done? (Guba & Lincoln, 1994, p. 108). Epistemology relates to the nature of knowledge about the phenomenon of study, the “assumptions about the grounds of knowledge – about how one might begin to understand the world and communicate this knowledge to fellow human beings” (Burrell & Morgan, 1979, p. 1). It can be summarized by what it means to know or how the knowledge about a phenomenon is created.
c) Methodology
My methodological approach is related to the way I obtain the knowledge or conduct the research (Guba, 1990). Here, methodology consists in research methods that I choose to build the knowledge including ways, procedures, tools for data collection and analysis (Mackenzie & Knipe, 2006). In addition, “a methodology is a structured set of guidelines or activities to assist people in undertaking research or intervention” (Mingers & Brocklesby, 1997, p. 490).
2.1.2. Types of research philosophy and research paradigms
The answers given to each of the core dimensions of ontology, epistemology and methodology configurate a certain type of paradigm. Three alternatives are possible to serve as classification guides and main trends with Burrell & Morgan (1979), Guba (1990) and Guba & Lincoln (2005).
First, the main trends considered by scholars are positivist research philosophy, interpretivist research philosophy, pragmatic research philosophy and realistic research philosophy.
Second, Guba’s (1990) initial research paradigms proposal considered three competing paradigms: positivist & postpositivist, constructivism and critical, and later he attached a fourth paradigm called participative (Guba & Lincoln, 2005).
Third, Burrell and Morgan’s (1979) contribution is unavoidable since they published “Sociological Paradigms and Organisational Analysis”. Influenced by Kuhn’s work, Burrell and Morgan stated that paradigms emerged because different perspectives of the analysis of a social phenomenon are adopted by scholars and they created four paradigms, as a map to guide the reading of scientific production and useful to locate our own investigation in social sciences. The four paradigms are dependent on scholars’ points of view about both the nature of science and the nature of society. While in the case of the nature of science, there is a spectrum of
possibilities, from subjective to objective dimensions, in the case of the nature of society, regulation and radical change are the alternative dimensions (Burrell & Morgan, 1979, p. 24). The framework, a 2 x 2 matrix, exhibits four opposite paradigms, ideal-type paradigms: “Radical humanist”; “Radical structuralist”, “Interpretive”; and “Functionalist” that are still discussed among organizational scholars after their introduction 40 years ago.
Whereas the functionalist paradigm has a traditional predominance in organizational study (Gioia & Pitre, 1990), scholars are increasingly exploring out of the positivist paradigm, using lenses of interpretivist, critical and postmodern perspectives (Lewis & Kelemen, 2002).
Using the initial main trends, the other two alternatives are shown as juxtaposed and obey to different assumptions about the three core dimensions of ontology, epistemology and
methodology (see Table 1).
Table 1 Juxtaposing paradigms approaches in social sciences
Research paradigms Scholars Research philosophy Positivist & Postpositivist Constructivism Critical
Guba (1990) Positivist & Postpositivist Constructivism Critical Guba and Lincoln (2005) Positivist & Postpositivist
Constructivism Critical Participative
Burrell and Morgan (1979)
Functionalist Interpretivist Radical Humanism Radical Structuralism
Source: own elaboration based on (Burrell & Morgan, 1979; Guba, 1990; Guba & Lincoln, 2005).
The main assumptions in each paradigm are developed in Table 2.
Table 2 Core assumptions behind paradigms in social sciences Research
paradigms
Core assumptions
Ontology Epistemology Methodology
Positivist Reality is out
there, has an objective nature and is independent of the researcher The knowledge is obtained without interference of values and moral features. Dualism, objectivism, findings true Experimental/ manipulative/ hypotheses/ quantitative methods Table continues
Ontology Epistemology Methodology Post-positivist / functionalist Reality is out there, objective, independent of the researcher. Value-free but it cannot be fully
apprehended
The knowledge is obtained without interference of values and moral features. Objectivity is the main regulatory ideal. Findings probably true A realistic objective inquiry. Modified experimental/manipulative, critical multiplism, may include qualitative methods Constructivism / interpretivist Reality has a subjective nature, grounded in cognition or consciousness, dependent, non value-free and admits diversity. Relativism Human subjective experiences or constructions are interpreted, and meanings emerge from subjects and researcher.
Alternatives as
hermeneutic and dialectic
Critical Critical realism,
historical realism shaped.
The values are guiding the research,
transactional and subjectivist
Dialogic, fosters awareness to trigger transformative intentions
Source: own elaboration based on (Burrell & Morgan, 1979; Guba, 1990; Guba & Lincoln, 2005).
2.1.3. Toward a multiparadigm inquiry approach
The exact beginning or ending of a paradigm is something that cannot be clearly established because they are far from being “hard-and-fast domains” (Gioia & Pitre, 1990, p. 592). The boundaries are perceived as ill-defined and blurred. This recognition motivates the authors to review boundaries as transition zones that can be bridged, employing second-order concepts, inspired by Van Maanen (1979).
The potential bridging across paradigms is called multiparadigm inquiry approach or multiparadigm strategy. In theory building, it provides the means to capture the broad
multifaceted nature of organizational reality despite still being resisted or criticized (Lewis & Kelemen, 2002, p. 252).
By employing a unique paradigm that logically fosters a specific epistemological assumption in a field that has not reached its maturity, the researcher is constraining himself to work with a type of rationality whereas the complexity is appealing to an enlargement. The creation of knowledge in this topic merits exploring other ways of rationality (Clegg, 1990; Lewis & Kelemen, 2002) through the multiparadigm inquiry which is likewise defended by exalting greater reflexivity in scholars and challenging them because “multiparadigm researchers live in a glasshouse open to attack from modernists and postmodernists alike” (Lewis &
Kelemen, 2002, p. 259).
According to Lewis and Kelemen (2002), multiparadigm inquiry presents two objectives “(1) to encourage greater awareness of theoretical alternatives and thereby facilitate discourse and/or inquiry across paradigms, and (2) to foster greater understandings of organizational plurality and paradox” (p. 258). The authors state that multiparadigm inquiry is facilitated both by a stratified ontology, e.g. reality adopting diverse dimensions, and by a pluralistic
epistemology, e.g. knowing by different ways, allowing other “truths” or open theoretical choice. Lewis and Grimes (1999) elaborate three multiparadigm strategies: multiparadigm review,
multiparadigm research and metaparadigm theory building that differ in objectives and challenges. For a review see Lewis & Kelemen (2002) and Gioia & Pitre (1990).
2.2.Three articles, two research paradigms
In this section, each of the three articles included in this collection is depicted through the research philosophy by raising what ontology, epistemology and methodology are adopted, framing the type of research paradigm toward multiparadigm inquiry and the HRM approach.
While the article titled “Matching HR professionals’ roles with business sustainability development: typologies of paradoxical roles” (from now on Article 1) is considered post-positivist or functionalist, the other two articles both adhere to a constructivist – interpretative paradigm (“Marrying Human Resource Management and Sustainability: the visual rhetorical analysis of a match made in heaven” and “When photographs verbalize the rise and fall of HRM linked with sustainability: a longitudinal case study”, from now on Article 2 and Article 3 respectively). However, this description is a way to fit the type of article with the paradigms frameworks whereas there are permeable boundaries or transition zones that were indeed explored in the theory building, thus using a multiparadigm inquiry strategy, in particular a multiparadigm review strategy.
The structure employed to describe the scientific paradigm in the papers is the same, using the sequence of Burrel and Morgan (1979): ontology, epistemology, human nature and methodology. However, before presenting methodology I include modes of theorizing.
2.2.1. Article 1 Post positivist – functionalist article 2.2.1.1.Ontology
The research titled “Matching HR professionals’ roles with business sustainability development: typologies of paradoxical roles” (Article 1) is grounded in an objective approach of social science because the reality that I address is tied to a concrete process, with tangible
evidence about organization and its decisional systems. Here, I assume the social worlds that include organizations are like concrete elements that are evolving permanently. Within the social world there are many elements, interconnected. The relationships that are moved by general or contingency reasons are “out there”, independent of my own appreciation or existence. The constitutive elements of society are competing, in a quest to achieve their own interests or goals. This reality with objective nature is described as follows: “at best the world expresses itself in terms of general and contingent relationships between its more stable and clear-cut elements” (Morgan & Smircich, 1980, pp. 494–495).
Using Burrel and Morgan’s framework of quartet paradigms and combining the
assumptions of the nature of science, in this case objective, and the nature of society, in this case regulation, the functionalist paradigm is representative of this article. On the other hand, it is important to note that the sociology of regulation elaborated by the authors embraces theorists who focus on explanations about society with emphasis on unity and cohesion with the aim of regulating humans’ affairs (Burrell & Morgan, 1979, p. 17).
2.2.1.2.Epistemology
In this article of positivist epistemology that is objectivism, my research is focused on structural elements that can support sustainable HRM strategy. The nature of the phenomena is based on a “stock of knowledge” or state of art of several contributions that pertain to fields of different traditions and degrees of consolidation. The knowledge is acquired by looking at the crossroads of sustainability development, roles theory, paradox theory and the new approach of sustainable HRM scholars’ contributions. By bringing together these main knowledges, I elaborated my theoretical proposal of typologies of HR profesionals’ roles. It is transmitted
through language in the format of a scientific paper tradition using fourfold representational product and based on a flow diagram of the methodological process that was carried out.
Furthermore, this research is a theorising process, a theory on theorising (Weick, 1995). In this theory building I acknowledge definitions given by Gioia and Pitre (1990) about theory “as any coherent description or explanation of observed or experienced phenomena” (p. 587) and theory building as a “process or cycle by which such representations are generated, tested, and refined” (p. 587).
2.2.1.3.Human nature
In this specific research with an objective approach of social science, my assumptions about human nature are that human beings are part of a world system and their existence is observable through their interactive relationships. Human beings are elements of a system that is in turn part of a bigger system or environment. Humans beings are interconnected and are both influenced and influencers in their context. Human beings are motivated to be in contact with others as a mechanism of survival because through these relationships they can obtain essential needs from their environment or protect it. The search for satisfaction of physiological needs can be extended to higher levels and may explain the competitive exchange process between human beings that enable to characterize them as environmental adaptors.
However I am aware that capturing this reality and the nature of humans cannot be fully reached, explaining this post positivism paradigm.
2.2.1.4.Modes of theorizing
Using the “modes of theorizing” in strategic HRM (Alcázar et al., 2005; Brewster, 1999; Delery & Doty, 1996) this research article adopts a universalist paradigm which in turn frames the methodological approach. The typologies for HR professionals to support higher levels of BSD are intended to be applicable to any context, universally useful, and by doing so I acknowledge a nomothetic social science approach (Brewster, 1999). Moved by the need to update the well diffused HR professionals’ roles (Ulrich, 1997) in a new era of big
environmental challenges of our planet, my intention was to generate typologies generalizable to any context to impact positively in organizational performance (Sparrow et al., 2004), regardless of comparative parameters such as the company, country, sector, or size.
There are three assumptions under this proposal. First, the essence of the structural organizational definitions are grounded in rationality and in impersonal decisions as a modern bureaucratic organization, using Weber’s contribution and the assumption that
there is a lineal relation between HR systems and performance. Thus it is expected that defining strategies and ways to implement them through the typologies that are aligned vertically with organizational strategy, constitute declarative steps that may enhance results. Second, internal organizational differences and their local environment are not determinants in the formulation. Instead, organizations tend to be more homogenized (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983) in their definitional strategies, structures, policies or activities through initiatives carried out through planned organizational change processes. The typologies built in this universalist paradigm are consistent with the isomorphism observed for at least mimetic reasons due to uncertainties of new scenarios and the rational cost benefit assessment that explains decisions to resemble others, even competitors, and to diminish risks. Third, organizations are expected to be concerned by
global planetary environmental issues beyond their boundaries (Dyllick & Muff, 2016), aligned with the Paris Agreement 2015 of the Conference of the Parties, COP21 (United Nations, 2015a) or the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (United Nations, 2015b). These desirable attitudes, moved by regulative, normative or cultural-cognitive pressures (Scott, 2008), may shape how organizations legitimate themselves (Suchman, 1995) through the definition of sustainable strategies and systems of implementation.
To sum up, the theorising process of building the typologies operates at a metatheoretical level, it constitutes a theory on theorising involving a multiparadigm review strategy.
2.2.1.5.Methodology
In relation to methology, the logical perspective is mainly deductive, by contrasting and juxtaposing conceptual advances in disparate theories like roles theory, paradox theory and sustainable development theory that are linked with the new approach of sustainable HRM. In this deductive process, relevant cross concepts are employed step by step and even a road map is depicted to understand the procedure. The logic and objectivism are building the typologies that are framed and compared on a theoretical level. To complete the research to test the hypotheses of the theory, a future inquiry, beyond the scope of the article has been announced to complete the research cycle.
2.2.2. Article 2 and 3 Constructivist – interpretative articles 2.2.2.1.Ontology
The researches in Article 2 and 3 are grounded on an subjective approach of social science because the reality that I am studying does not have an objective nature, but rather rests
on my own cognition or consciousness. In this case, my core assumption is that reality is a product of social construction, adopting Berger and Lukmann’s approach (1966). In such way, the world is made up by human beings and transmitted by human beings who learn it through other human beings. In the process of human actions and relations, symbolic realtionships and meanings are created that form a society. In a social milieu, the symbols and meanings are reinforced by human’s interpretations that maintain them or even transform them. Symbols and meanings are organized as a thread of networks of subjective meanings that explain actions, maintain and also change interpretations. According to Morgan and Smircich (1980):
The fundamental character of the social world is embedded in the network of subjective meanings that sustain the rule-like actions that lend it enduring form. Reality rests not in the rule or in rule-following, but in the system of meaningful action that renders itself to an external observer as rule-like. (pp. 494-495)
2.2.2.2.Epistemology
These two articles with an interpretivist epistemology that is subjectivist, derived from a totally different ontology. As the phenomenon does not exist out there but on the contrary it exists because we human beings socially construct it, the interpretation is how the meaning emerged and how it is rooted in a local and historically situated culture. Here, the construction of reality implies that as a researcher I have a role in the extraction of symbols and routines that are taken for granted but are the product of social learning and transmitted learnings in social
contexts. Thus, the basic epistemological stand is to understand patterns of symbolic discourse through the standpoint of individuals, my position as a researcher being part of the specific social context.
However, this main subjective approach is not completely “pure”, there is some
juxtaposition with several elements of reality that are both objective and subjective. Indeed, the HRM and sustainability linkages are explicitly and implicitly evoked. The linkages are
evidenced through real standards, ratios, statistics or best practices recorded in corporate reports used as secondary data. In some cases, the reality is intentionally exposed by the company as part of its strategy, structure or standards. Thus, this reality can be measured, recorded, apprehended independently of who the researcher is, or even autonomously of time. While one part of reality is out there, another is hidden and not explicitly exposed and this reality necessarily implies an interpretation of stakeholders or researchers. In summary, the approach in these two papers is multiparadigmatic even if the subjective approach is dominant. The intention is not to try to reconciliate the core ontological assumptions because they are in essence irreconciliable, but to explore more in depth the phenomenon that has not received attention in the visual rhetoric way so far. This approach of bridging paradigms is understood in what the essence of ontological paradigms are. Taking into account Burrell and Morgan’s (1979) continuums of
subjetivity/objectivity and stability/change dimensions, exact divisions within the spectrum are not posible to establish. Hence, “blurred transitions zones” (Gioia & Pitre, 1990, p. 592) exist between paradigms creating permeable boundaries that can be tackled and which have an impact on theory building.
2.2.2.3.Human nature
My assumption about human nature is that human beings are permanently interpreting their environment and acting in accordance with what they think is meaningful for them. They are enacting reality and also managing the meaning of reality using powerful tools like language,
