Win-Win-Lose? Sustainable HRM and the promotion of unsustainable employee outcomes
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The apparent win-win-win situation for organizations, employees, and the external environment is often misleading because gains for one stakeholder may correspond to losses for another.
“Thus, what appears as an ostensibly win-win-win situation for organizations, employees, and the external environment (Jackson et al., 2011) is often misleading because gains for one of those stakeholders may correspond to losses for another (Bush, 2020).”
From Advancing the sustainability agenda through strategic human resource management: Insights and suggestions for future research (2023) · cites this paper as Bush, 2020
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 72 · Cited by 110
- Authors
- Bush, J. T.
- Affiliations
- Arizona State University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Bush, John T.
- ORCID
- Bush, John T.
- Venue
- Human Resource Management Review
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2020-09
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 100676
- ISSN
- 1053-4822 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2904433149
- Cited by
- 110
- References
- 72
- Citations by year
- 2026: 17 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 5
- FWCI
- 7.45
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Human Resource Management Review (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Job Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › Environmental Sustainability in Business
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Human Resource and Talent Management
- Keywords
- sustainable human resource management, triple bottom line, role conflict, role ambiguity, role theory, perceived organizational support, Type A behavior pattern, employee outcomes, organizational sustainability
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
