Aust, Matthews & Muller-Camen (2020) "Common Good HRM: A paradigm
shift in Sustainable HRM?" → Human Resource Management Review, 30(3),
100705.
Purpose of the Article
- The paper asks whether the purpose of HRM is being transformed by the
sustainability agenda; shifting from a purely economic purpose to a multi-purpose
model that includes the "common good."
- The authors review the Sustainable HRM literature, propose a typology of four
Sustainable HRM types, and argue for a new type, Common Good HRM, as the way
to help HRM contribute to the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
Key Background Concepts
Hard HRM (Michigan model) → HRM exists purely to serve shareholder value;
one-dimensional economic purpose
Soft HRM (Harvard/Human Relations tradition) → two-dimensional purpose (economic
performance and employee well-being) but shareholder value still dominates
Context-based HRM (Legge, Jackson & Schuler) → HRM has multiple roles serving
supervisors, peers, customers, and society → an early move toward pluralism.
The shift toward Triple/Quadruple Bottom Line thinking reframes organisational success
beyond profit
The Typology: Four Types of Sustainable HRM
Built on Dyllick & Muff's (2016) business sustainability typology (inside-out vs outside-in
perspective).
Type 1 → Socially Responsible HRM: Inside-out (economic + social, social serves
economic).
- Core concern → awareness of business impact on people beyond firm boundaries
- Output → enhanced reputation, employer attractiveness.
Type 2 → Green HRM → Inside-out (economic + environmental).
- Core concern → embedding green values/practices (green recruitment, training,
rewards).
- Output → reduced carbon footprint + engagement.
Type 3 → Triple Bottom Line HRM: Inside-out (economic + environmental + social, all
serving economic).
- Core concern → win-win-win balancing.
, - Output → multidimensional outcomes, but prone to paradox/tension.
Type 4 → Common Good HRM → Outside-in.
- Core concern → using HR competencies to solve "grand challenges" (climate,
poverty, migration).
- Output → social & ecological sustainable development impact.
Key distinction
- Types 1-3 are inside-out → sustainability serves the firm's economic interest
- Type 4 (Common Good HRM) reverses this logic → the firm's purpose becomes
contributing to society; economic gain becomes secondary/equal, not primary
Common Good HRM → Core Ideas
- Grounded in values of dignity, solidarity, and reciprocity
- Inspired by movements such as B Corp, Conscious Capitalism, Economy for the
Common Good (ECG)
Four design principles:
1) Outside-in perspective aimed at solving grand challenges/SDGs
2) Equal and fair employment relationships as the basis of trust
3) Stakeholder participation and democratic workplace representation
4) Upholding the psychological contract (security, safety, meaningful work)
Three Illustrative Examples (Table 2 in the article)
1) In-work poverty / exploitative supply chains → Business human rights → Fair wage
audits, supplier training → Patagonia
2) Lack of labour voice → Workplace democracy & self-management → Team-based
recruitment, self-managed pay decisions → Morning Star Company
3) (Youth) unemployment → Employment creation → Prioritising job creation over
automation → Sonnentor (Austria)
Future Research Agenda (as proposed by authors)
- Empirically test the four-type typology
- Develop theory specifically for Common Good HRM (currently under-theorised)
- Study the role of context (organisational size, ownership type, country) in shaping
feasibility of Common Good HRM.
Critical Points to Remember
- This is a conceptual/typology paper, not empirical → it proposes ideas rather than
tests them.
- Common Good HRM is presented as aspirational and normative → the authors
acknowledge it may not suit all firms (e.g., large shareholder-driven public
companies).
, - It is the foundational paper that later work (Cooke, 2025) critiques and builds on.
Self-Check Questions
1) What is the fundamental difference between an "inside-out" and an "outside-in"
perspective on Sustainable HRM?
2) List and briefly describe the four types of Sustainable HRM in Aust et al.'s typology.
Which type do the authors argue is most likely to close the sustainability gap, and
why?
3) What are the four design principles of Common Good HRM?
4) Using one of the three company examples (Patagonia, Morning Star, Sonnentor),
explain how HRM practices addressed a specific "grand challenge."
5) Why might Common Good HRM be difficult to implement in a large, publicly listed,
shareholder-driven company?
6) According to the authors, what values underpin Common Good HRM, and how do
these differ from the values underpinning Hard HRM?
Cooke (2025) "From Strategic HRM to Sustainable HRM? Exploring a
Common Good Approach Through a Critical Reflection on Existing Literature"
→ Human Resource Management, 64(5), 1381–1399.
Purpose of the Article
- A perspective/opinion paper (not empirical) that critically reflects on the sustainable
HRM literature, with a focus on Common Good HRM as its "latest variant."
- Cooke asks → is Common Good HRM really the way forward, and if so, how can it
be advanced intellectually and practically?
- Written as a critique/extension of Aust et al. (2020)
The Sustainability Agenda & "Researcher Activism"
- Traces the sustainability agenda from the 2008 Global Financial Crisis onward,
through Elkington's Triple Bottom Line (1994) and the UN's 17 SDGs (2015).
- Introduces the idea of "researcher activism"
● Institutional pressures (PRME, RRBM principles, funding bodies, journals)
have driven academics to actively promote sustainability research
● This partly explains the rapid growth of the sustainable HRM literature,
independent of practical uptake by firms.
- RRBM principles → service to society, valuing basic + applied research, plurality,
sound methodology, stakeholder involvement, impact, dissemination.
From Strategic HRM to Sustainable HRM: A Value Shift (Figure 1)
Cooke maps how Strategic HRM (firm-oriented, profit-driven) strands, e.g.,
Hard/transactional, Soft/developmental, high-involvement, transformational, evolved into
Sustainable HRM (value-based, society-oriented) strands:
shift in Sustainable HRM?" → Human Resource Management Review, 30(3),
100705.
Purpose of the Article
- The paper asks whether the purpose of HRM is being transformed by the
sustainability agenda; shifting from a purely economic purpose to a multi-purpose
model that includes the "common good."
- The authors review the Sustainable HRM literature, propose a typology of four
Sustainable HRM types, and argue for a new type, Common Good HRM, as the way
to help HRM contribute to the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
Key Background Concepts
Hard HRM (Michigan model) → HRM exists purely to serve shareholder value;
one-dimensional economic purpose
Soft HRM (Harvard/Human Relations tradition) → two-dimensional purpose (economic
performance and employee well-being) but shareholder value still dominates
Context-based HRM (Legge, Jackson & Schuler) → HRM has multiple roles serving
supervisors, peers, customers, and society → an early move toward pluralism.
The shift toward Triple/Quadruple Bottom Line thinking reframes organisational success
beyond profit
The Typology: Four Types of Sustainable HRM
Built on Dyllick & Muff's (2016) business sustainability typology (inside-out vs outside-in
perspective).
Type 1 → Socially Responsible HRM: Inside-out (economic + social, social serves
economic).
- Core concern → awareness of business impact on people beyond firm boundaries
- Output → enhanced reputation, employer attractiveness.
Type 2 → Green HRM → Inside-out (economic + environmental).
- Core concern → embedding green values/practices (green recruitment, training,
rewards).
- Output → reduced carbon footprint + engagement.
Type 3 → Triple Bottom Line HRM: Inside-out (economic + environmental + social, all
serving economic).
- Core concern → win-win-win balancing.
, - Output → multidimensional outcomes, but prone to paradox/tension.
Type 4 → Common Good HRM → Outside-in.
- Core concern → using HR competencies to solve "grand challenges" (climate,
poverty, migration).
- Output → social & ecological sustainable development impact.
Key distinction
- Types 1-3 are inside-out → sustainability serves the firm's economic interest
- Type 4 (Common Good HRM) reverses this logic → the firm's purpose becomes
contributing to society; economic gain becomes secondary/equal, not primary
Common Good HRM → Core Ideas
- Grounded in values of dignity, solidarity, and reciprocity
- Inspired by movements such as B Corp, Conscious Capitalism, Economy for the
Common Good (ECG)
Four design principles:
1) Outside-in perspective aimed at solving grand challenges/SDGs
2) Equal and fair employment relationships as the basis of trust
3) Stakeholder participation and democratic workplace representation
4) Upholding the psychological contract (security, safety, meaningful work)
Three Illustrative Examples (Table 2 in the article)
1) In-work poverty / exploitative supply chains → Business human rights → Fair wage
audits, supplier training → Patagonia
2) Lack of labour voice → Workplace democracy & self-management → Team-based
recruitment, self-managed pay decisions → Morning Star Company
3) (Youth) unemployment → Employment creation → Prioritising job creation over
automation → Sonnentor (Austria)
Future Research Agenda (as proposed by authors)
- Empirically test the four-type typology
- Develop theory specifically for Common Good HRM (currently under-theorised)
- Study the role of context (organisational size, ownership type, country) in shaping
feasibility of Common Good HRM.
Critical Points to Remember
- This is a conceptual/typology paper, not empirical → it proposes ideas rather than
tests them.
- Common Good HRM is presented as aspirational and normative → the authors
acknowledge it may not suit all firms (e.g., large shareholder-driven public
companies).
, - It is the foundational paper that later work (Cooke, 2025) critiques and builds on.
Self-Check Questions
1) What is the fundamental difference between an "inside-out" and an "outside-in"
perspective on Sustainable HRM?
2) List and briefly describe the four types of Sustainable HRM in Aust et al.'s typology.
Which type do the authors argue is most likely to close the sustainability gap, and
why?
3) What are the four design principles of Common Good HRM?
4) Using one of the three company examples (Patagonia, Morning Star, Sonnentor),
explain how HRM practices addressed a specific "grand challenge."
5) Why might Common Good HRM be difficult to implement in a large, publicly listed,
shareholder-driven company?
6) According to the authors, what values underpin Common Good HRM, and how do
these differ from the values underpinning Hard HRM?
Cooke (2025) "From Strategic HRM to Sustainable HRM? Exploring a
Common Good Approach Through a Critical Reflection on Existing Literature"
→ Human Resource Management, 64(5), 1381–1399.
Purpose of the Article
- A perspective/opinion paper (not empirical) that critically reflects on the sustainable
HRM literature, with a focus on Common Good HRM as its "latest variant."
- Cooke asks → is Common Good HRM really the way forward, and if so, how can it
be advanced intellectually and practically?
- Written as a critique/extension of Aust et al. (2020)
The Sustainability Agenda & "Researcher Activism"
- Traces the sustainability agenda from the 2008 Global Financial Crisis onward,
through Elkington's Triple Bottom Line (1994) and the UN's 17 SDGs (2015).
- Introduces the idea of "researcher activism"
● Institutional pressures (PRME, RRBM principles, funding bodies, journals)
have driven academics to actively promote sustainability research
● This partly explains the rapid growth of the sustainable HRM literature,
independent of practical uptake by firms.
- RRBM principles → service to society, valuing basic + applied research, plurality,
sound methodology, stakeholder involvement, impact, dissemination.
From Strategic HRM to Sustainable HRM: A Value Shift (Figure 1)
Cooke maps how Strategic HRM (firm-oriented, profit-driven) strands, e.g.,
Hard/transactional, Soft/developmental, high-involvement, transformational, evolved into
Sustainable HRM (value-based, society-oriented) strands:
