Adopting Eco-Friendly Policies to Transform the Workplace for a Sustainable Future

Adopting Eco-Friendly Policies to Transform the Workplace for a Sustainable Future

Jayashree. R¹*., Dr. S. Jayakani²

¹Research Scholar, Department of Commerce Vels Institute of Science, Technology and Advanced Studies, Pallavaram, Chennai – 600 117

²Professor, Research Supervisor & Guide, Department of Commerce Vels Institute of Science, Technology and Advanced Studies, Pallavaram, Chennai – 600 117

DOI: https://doi.org/10.51584/IJRIAS.2025.10040075

Received: 02 May 2025; Accepted: 06 May 2025; Published: 20 May 2025

ABSTRACT

This study analyse the effects of eco-friendly policies on organizational performance, evaluating employee perceptions of green initiatives, and identifying cost-effective strategies for integrating sustainability. Adopting eco-friendly policies in the workplace is essential for embracing a sustainable future while enhancing organizational efficiency and reputation. It is a crucial strategy for organizations striving for sustainability in a rapidly changing world (Fernando & Wah, 2017). These policies, ranging from waste management and energy conservation to the integration of sustainable technologies and practices, will reduce environmental footprints and promote a culture of responsibility and innovation among employees. Eco-friendly initiatives can improve employee well-being and engagement by creating healthier, more inspiring work environments (Farrukh et al., 2022). This article discovers the transformative potential of eco-friendly workplace policies, emphasizing their role in achieving long-term sustainability goals.

Keywords: eco-friendly, employee, policies and workplace

INTRODUCTION

In an era of increasing environmental awareness and climate challenges, industries play a pivotal role in driving sustainability (Alegre-Vidal et al., 2004; Zafar et al., 2023). Implementing eco-friendly policies in the workplace is no longer an option but a requirement for organizations aiming to align with global sustainability goals and meet the expectations of environmentally conscious stakeholders (Azadegan & Wagner, 2011). These policies encompass a wide range of initiatives, such as minimizing waste, reducing energy consumption, promoting recycling, and integrating sustainable technologies (Al Kez et al., 2022). Beyond their environmental benefits, eco-friendly workplace practices contribute to cost savings, regulatory compliance, and improved employee satisfaction (Farrukh 2022; Ni 2023). It examines how eco-friendly policies revolutionize the workplace, ensuring long-term environmental and business sustainability (Alegre-Vidal et al., 2004; Farrukh et al., 2022). Compliance with environmental regulations is a legal obligation and an opportunity to adopt best practices that align with global sustainability standards (Tian et al., 2021). Organizations need to meet these requirements to gain a competitive advantage (Varzaru, 2021).

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Fallah Shayan, Alavi, and Zahed, (2022), stated that integrating sustainability into workplace operations benefits the environment and also supports broader socio-economic development objectives. Eco-friendly policies enhance workplace environments, by creating healthier spaces for employees.

Farrukh, Ansari, and Wang, (2022). This study emphasizes eco-friendly practices and behaviors in the workplace. Green transformational leadership plays an essential role in raising employees’ pro-environmental behavior within organizations. Green leaders integrating environmental values into organizational goals, policies, and daily operations.

Feor, and Dougherty, (2023). This study highlights the critical process for evaluating broader effects of adopting eco-friendly workplace policies on employees, and society. This contains evaluating how these policies contribute to improved employee well-being, stronger community relationships and enriched workplace equity. Metrics such as health benefits, employee satisfaction, and participation in sustainability initiatives are used to measure the internal social impact, while external measures include contributions to local environmental projects, and reductions in the organization’s ecological footprint.

Fernando, and Wah, (2017). Eco-innovation drivers, such as technological advancements, regulatory pressures, organizational leadership, and market demand, influence environmental performance in organizations. These drivers encourage organizations to develop and implement innovative solutions. Regulatory pressures, including sustainability standards, and environmental laws compel organizations to adopt greener practices, such as energy-efficient technologies and waste reduction systems. Technological advancements provide the tools and processes necessary for sustainable production, supporting organizations to minimize emissions and optimize resource utilization.

Hehenberger, and Buckland, (2023). They underscore the growth and sustainability of social economy. By systematic evaluation, organizations can track how their eco-friendly policies and practices contribute to societal well-being, community development, and environmental preservation. Transparent impact measurement enhances accountability, attracts investments, and consumer trust.

Adoption of Eco-Friendly Workplace Policies

Leadership Commitment

Leaders set the tone for organizational priorities by practicing sustainability initiatives (Fallah Shayan et al., 2022). This comprises integrating environmental goals into the company’s vision, encouraging a culture of accountability and allocating resources for green projects (Farrukh et al., 2022). Without leadership sustainability efforts may lack the momentum needed to create meaningful change (Zafar et al., 2023).

Employee Awareness

Creating awareness about the importance of sustainability through workshops and training programs can raise a sense of ownership and responsibility among the workforce (Ashrafi et al., 2020). Engaging employees in green initiatives, like energy-saving challenges, helps embed sustainability into workplace practices (Fallah Shayan et al., 2022; Hehenberger & Buckland, 2023).

Technological Integration

Technology plays a vital role in enabling and monitoring eco-friendly practices (Fernando & Wah, 2017). Energy-efficient appliances, Smart building systems, and digital tools for remote work can reduce waste and energy consumption (Alegre-Vidal et al., 2004; Farrukh et al., 2022). Investing in green technologies can supports sustainability and improves operational efficiency and reduces costs over time (Farrukh et al., 2022) (Ali et al., 2024).

Policy Framework

Developing clear policies and guidelines ensures that sustainability goals are measurable and actionable (Alegre-Vidal et al., 2004). These policies may include waste reduction protocols, energy-saving measures, or guidelines for sustainable procurement (Fernando & Wah, 2017).

Behavioral Change

Sustainability must become an integral part of workplace culture to drive lasting change (Al Kez et al., 2022). Encouraging behavioral shifts, such as reducing paper usage, requires consistent communication and incentives (Carroll, 1999). Recognizing employees’ efforts can reinforce a culture of sustainability (Tian et al., 2021).

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical framework is anchored in the integration of Institutional Theory, the Theory of Planned Behaviour, and the Resource-Based View. Institutional Theory indicates the influence of external forces on an organization’s decision to adopt eco-friendly policies. The Theory of Planned Behavior provides insights into how these policies affect individual-level outcomes, particularly employee attitudes, behaviors and intentions toward environmental responsibility. The Resource-Based View supports the idea that green HR strategies, eco-friendly practices, and a sustainability-driven culture are valuable, rare, and inimitable resources that can create a competitive advantage. These theories form a comprehensive framework that clarifies how the implementation of eco-friendly policies leads to increased employee engagement in sustainable practices, raises an environmentally conscious organizational culture, and drives the transformation of the workplace toward long-term sustainability goals.

Objectives

To assess the impact of eco-friendly workplace policies on organizational sustainability.

To analyse employee attitudes towards eco-friendly initiatives in the workplace.

Hypothesis

H1: Adoption of eco-friendly policies significantly enriches organizational sustainability.

H2: Positive association between Technological Integration and Behavioral Change.

METHODOLOGY

The quantitative component comprises a structured survey distributed to employees and management across various organizations to assess their attitudes, and perceptions related to eco-friendly initiatives. The qualitative component comprises in-depth interviews with key stakeholders, comprising sustainability officers and organizational leaders, to gain insights into the challenges and strategies involved in implementing green policies.

Sample size

For the current study, the researcher issued 150 questionnaires to the employees to ensure maximum reliability. 134 questionnaires were received, the usable questionnaires are 121, thus, the sample size for this study is 121.

Instrument design

A structured questionnaire was used to collect quantitative data from the employees regarding eco-friendly policies.

Data analysis

The following statistical tools have been employed to obtain results from the primary data.

• One sample t test
• Multiple regression analysis

Analysis and Interpretation

Table1.1

Table 1.1 displays, The Leadership Commitment noted a (mean = 2.74), (SD = 1.180), signifying a moderate level among employees concerning the extent of leadership Commitment in promoting sustainability.

Employee Awareness had a little higher (mean = 2.79), (SD = 1.219), representing that employees are slightly aware of eco-friendly practices, shows differing levels of understanding across the group.

Technological Integration showed (mean = 2.79), (SD = 1.322), signifying that while some technology is in place to support green initiatives, its adoption may not be consistent across departments.

Policy Framework produced (mean = 2.33), (SD = 0.961), indicating a weak presence of formal eco-friendly policies within the organizations. This specify a need for more structured sustainability policies.

Behavioural Change exhibited (mean = 2.57), (SD = 1.031), suggesting a moderate shift in employee behaviour toward sustainability. The table 1.2 reveals the ‘t’ test value of all the factors.

Table 1.2

H1: Adoption of eco-friendly policies significantly enriches organizational sustainability.

The range of T values are 23.237 to 27.412. T values are significant. Employees strongly agreed that eco-friendly policies can make changes in the behaviour of employees and enriches organizational sustainability.

Table 1.3

The above table displays that R2=.689 and the adjusted R2=.678. Therefore, eco-friendly Policies creates 68.9% variance on Behavioral Change. The regression fit verified with the following table:

Table 1.4

F=64.116, P=.000^b are statistically significant @ 5% level, hence there is a significant relationship between the factors of eco-friendly Policies and Behavioral Change. The individual influence of all the variables can be estimated in the below coefficient table.

Table 1.5

P value of the factors such as Leadership Commitment (β=.493, t= 5.591, P=.000), Employee Awareness (β =.339, t= 3.806, P=.000), and Policy Framework (β=.269, t=3.961, P=.000) <0.05. Thus, H0 rejected. It indicates there is a relationship among Leadership Commitment, Employee Awareness, Policy Framework and Behavioral Change.

H2: Positive association between Technological Integration and Behavioral Change.

P value of Technological Integration (β =-.161, t=-1.783, P=.077) >0.05. Consequently, H0 accepted. It specifies there is no association between Technological Integration and Behavioral Change.

Chart 1.1

Figure 1.1

RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION

Leadership must take a proactive role in supporting sustainability by setting clear goals and allocating necessary resources (Crespo et al., 2017). Conducting employee engagement programs to develop a sense of ownership and collective responsibility for green initiatives (Feor et al., 2023). Leveraging technology, such as energy-efficient systems and digital tools, can enhance operational efficiency and reduce environmental footprints (Meyer & Allen, 1991). Organizations need to establish clear guidelines and regularly assess the sustainability practices to ensure alignment with evolving regulatory standards and stakeholder expectations (Saks, 2006; Schleicher et al., 2018). Partnerships with environmental organizations and participation in green certification programs can also provide external validation and support for sustainability efforts (Afsar & Rehman, 2015).

Eco-friendly policies are essential for transforming the workplace into a centre of sustainability and innovation (“The Human Resource Craze: Human Performance Improvement and Employee Engagement,” 2008). Organizations can reduce the environmental impact while improving operational efficiency and stakeholder trust (Ashrafi et al., 2020; Carroll, 1999; Fernando & Wah, 2017). Eco-friendly policies contribute to long-term business success by raising employee engagement, improving brand reputation, and ensuring compliance with environmental regulations (Bakker & Demerouti, 2008). Meeting stakeholder expectations enhance brand reputation and market positioning. Waste reduction, energy savings, and tax incentives contribute to cost efficiency. Organizations must carefully evaluate the financial implications to ensure the economic viability of their sustainability efforts.

This study concludes that while employee awareness and technological integration display relatively better scores, the low mean for policy framework proposes that formal structures for environmental action may be lacking. This gap between awareness and institutional support might limit the effectiveness of eco-friendly transformation efforts. Moreover, the standard deviations show some variability in responses, emphasizing inconsistent experiences.

REFERENCES

1. Afsar, B., & Rehman, M. (2015). The relationship between workplace spirituality and innovative work behavior: the mediating role of perceived person–organization fit. Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion, 12(4), 329–353. https://doi.org/10.1080/14766086.2015.1060515
2. Al Kez, D., Foley, A. M., Laverty, D., Del Rio, D. F., & Sovacool, B. (2022). Exploring the sustainability challenges facing digitalization and internet data centers. Journal of Cleaner Production, 371, 133633. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.133633
3. Alegre-Vidal, J., Lapiedra-Alcamı́, R., & Chiva-Gómez, R. (2004). Linking operations strategy and product innovation: an empirical study of Spanish ceramic tile producers. Research Policy, 33(5), 829–839. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2004.01.003
4. Ali, M., Amir, H., & Ahmed, M. (2024). The role of university switching costs, perceived service quality, perceived university image and student satisfaction in shaping student loyalty. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 34(1), 201–222. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841241.2021.1975184
5. Ashrafi, M., Magnan, G. M., Adams, M., & Walker, T. R. (2020). Understanding the Conceptual Evolutionary Path and Theoretical Underpinnings of Corporate Social Responsibility and Corporate Sustainability. Sustainability, 12(3), 760. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12030760
6. Azadegan, A., & Wagner, S. M. (2011). Industrial upgrading, exploitative innovations and explorative innovations. International Journal of Production Economics, 130(1), 54–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2010.11.007
7. Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2008). Towards a model of work engagement. Career Development International, 13(3), 209–223. https://doi.org/10.1108/13620430810870476
8. Carroll, A. B. (1999). Corporate Social Responsibility. Business & Society, 38(3), 268–295. https://doi.org/10.1177/000765039903800303
9. Crespo, B., Míguez-Álvarez, C., Arce, M. E., Cuevas, M., & Míguez, J. L. (2017). The Sustainable Development Goals: An Experience on Higher Education. Sustainability, 9(8), 1353. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9081353
10. Fallah Shayan, N., Mohabbati-Kalejahi, N., Alavi, S., & Zahed, M. A. (2022). Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as a Framework for Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). Sustainability, 14(3), 1222. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14031222
11. Farrukh, M., Ansari, N., Raza, A., Wu, Y., & Wang, H. (2022). Fostering employee’s pro-environmental behavior through green transformational leadership, green human resource management and environmental knowledge. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 179, 121643. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2022.121643
12. Feor, L., Clarke, A., & Dougherty, I. (2023). Social Impact Measurement: A Systematic Literature Review and Future Research Directions. World, 4(4), 816–837. https://doi.org/10.3390/world4040051
13. Fernando, Y., & Wah, W. X. (2017). The impact of eco-innovation drivers on environmental performance: Empirical results from the green technology sector in Malaysia. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 12, 27–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2017.05.002
14. Hehenberger, L., & Buckland, L. (2023). How impact measurement fosters the social economy. In Social Economy Science (pp. 138–166). Oxford University PressOxford. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780192868343.003.0007
15. Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1(1), 61–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/1053-4822(91)90011-Z
16. Ni, L., Ahmad, S. F., Alshammari, T. O., Liang, H., Alsanie, G., Irshad, M., Alyafi-AlZahri, R., BinSaeed, R. H., Al-Abyadh, M. H. A., Abu Bakir, S. M. M., & Ayassrah, A. Y. A. B. A. (2023). The role of environmental regulation and green human capital towards sustainable development: The mediating role of green innovation and industry upgradation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 421, 138497. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.138497
17. Saks, A. M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(7), 600–619. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940610690169
18. Schleicher, J., Schaafsma, M., & Vira, B. (2018). Will the Sustainable Development Goals address the links between poverty and the natural environment? Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 34, 43–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.09.004
19. The human resource craze: human performance improvement and employee engagement. (2008). Strategic Direction, 24(8). https://doi.org/10.1108/sd.2008.05624had.007
20. Tian, G., Pekyi, G. D., Chen, H., Sun, H., & Wang, X. (2021). Sustainability-Conscious Stakeholders and CSR: Evidence from IJVs of Ghana. Sustainability, 13(2), 639. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13020639
21. Vărzaru, A. A., Bocean, C. G., & Nicolescu, M. M. (2021). Rethinking Corporate Responsibility and Sustainability in Light of Economic Performance. Sustainability, 13(5), 2660. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13052660
22. Zafar, H., Malik, A., Gugnani, R., Agarwal, R., & Nijjer, S. (2023). Green thumbs at work: Boosting employee eco-participation through ecocentric leadership, green crafting, and green human resource management. Journal of Cleaner Production, 432, 139718. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.139718