The International Journal of Human Resource Management

Common-Good Human Resource Management: Global and Comparative Perspectives

This special issue is part of a dual Special Issue Call for Papers on Common Good HRM in the International Journal of Human Resource Management. The other special issue, entitled Future-Proofing Organizations Through Common Good Human Resource Management (CGHRM): Opportunities and Challenges, is available here: (Future-Proofing Organizations Through Common Good Human Resource Management (CGHRM): Opportunities and Challenges). Both parts of the special issue will be housed in a shared Collection in the journal.

Common-Good Human Resource Management: Global and Comparative Perspectives

Background

The firm has a moral responsibility and faces institutional and stakeholder pressure to help achieve the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (UNSDGs) (Aust et al., 2020), which address the global economic, environmental, and social challenges (Cook, 2025). Hence, scholars are increasingly paying attention to the implementation of the common-good human resource management (CGHRM) (Cooke et al., 2023). CGHRM is a distinct form of sustainable HRM that addresses the UNSDGs as equal to or more than the firm’s personal-good (market-driven) performance (Aust et al., 2024). CGHRM advocates for embedding the principles of (i) equal and fair employment relationships, (ii) providing stakeholders with equal participation opportunities, and (iii) ensuring employees have strong psychological contracts in the HRM policy, practices, and structures (Aust et al., 2020). CGHRM can be found in various types of organisations, including businesses, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), and public sector organisations, and across a range of organisational sizes, from small and medium-sized enterprises to multinational corporations (MNCs) (Brewster & Brookes, 2024). A large proportion of literature investigates how CGHRM shapes employee common-good outcomes (e.g., ethical behaviour) in firms in the Global South (Lu et al., 2025; Pham et al., 2023), supplementing such work on UNSDG performance in the Global North (Järlström et al., 2024; Kruse & Wegge, 2024).

Theoretical contributions of the special issue

Some scholars believe that CGHRM risks becoming another managerial fad due to at least two concerns (Brewster & Brookes, 2024; Cook, 2025), which our special issue addresses. First, the CGHRM construct lacks clarity (see Lu et al., 2025; Pham et al., 2023) and empirical evidence of distinctive validity from related (sustainable) HRM forms (e.g., triple bottom line HRM) (Brewster & Brookes, 2024). Second, there are transferability issues between settings in highlighting the best CGHRM practices and what might serve as a meaningful base of comparison (Järlström et al., 2024). This is because different types and sizes of firms and across different countries have distinct (i) internal and external situational factors (e.g., (un)supportive management, HR practitioners’ (often-limited) influence (Brewster et al., 2015), and (in)formal institutions); and (ii) stakeholders’ (competing) interests, support, and pressure (e.g., government regulatory pressure (Brandl et al., 2024) (Beer, 1984; Boselie & Brewster, 2015; Liang et al., 2024). Such distinct situational factors and stakeholders’ interests shape the firm’s decision to (not) implement the CGHRM and (not) pursue the common-good performance (Brewster & Brookes, 2024). For instance, a powerful anti-sustainability movement has arisen in Trumpite America that seeks to penalise firms and investors alike who exhibit a preference for environmental, social, and governance issues generally and CGHRM in particular (see Allen, 2025), whilst UNSDGs progress remains slow and uneven in the Global South due to its unique political economy (Sachs et al., 2024). Accordingly, there is much room to employ context-sensitive research agendas that explore how CGHRM can be implemented to achieve maximised or balanced common-good and personal-good performance (Boselie et al., 2009) amidst the situational factors and stakeholders’ interests (Cooke et al., 2023).

Objectives of the special issue

This special issue (SI) aims to (i) deepen the empirical knowledge of CGHRM as a distinct form of sustainable HRM; (ii) lay the groundwork for context-informed, meaningful comparisons of CGHRM practices worldwide. The following are the indicative but non-exhaustive questions that this special issue addresses:

• How are the CGHRM constructs—determinants, practices, policies, work systems, and consequences—empirically distinctive from those of related (sustainable) HRM forms?
• How do internal and external situational factors (e.g., institutions) and stakeholders’ (competing) interests prompt firms of different types (e.g., business) and sizes (e.g., MNCs) to (not) implement the CGHRM in countries in the Global North and South? How do these factors determine the CGHRM effectiveness?
• How does the HR department (not) influence the organisational pursuit of CGHRM and common-good performance in countries of the Global North and South?
• How do firms in the Global South implement indigenous CGHRM models, practices, and work systems that may differ from or be beneficial for their counterparts in the Global North?
• What can be learned empirically from the CGHRM theory and practice historically advocated by and embedded in religious organisations (Zigarelli, 1993) for the current CGHRM theory and practice for the UNSDGs? How does religiosity or spirituality affect the CGHRM practice, for instance, in NGOs?
• How do CGHRM practices impact HR outcomes differently in countries of the Global North and South?
• How do the common-good firms deploy CGHRM to achieve their (balanced) common-good and personal-good performance simultaneously?
• How is the personal-good performance of common-good companies—e.g., the Benefit Corporation—comparable to their global counterparts in the North or South?