The influence of green quality of work life, green employee engagement, and green rewards on green employee retention in SME employees

Resumen

Uno de los mayores desafíos para los empresarios es retener a los empleados, que son cruciales para mejorar el desempeño de la empresa, especialmente en las PYMEs. Esta investigación tiene como objetivo determinar la influencia de la calidad de vida laboral ecológica, el compromiso ecológico de los empleados y las recompensas ecológicas en la retención de empleados ecológicos. El estudio emplea un enfoque cuantitativo, tomando una muestra de 204 empleados de PYMEs en Indonesia, determinado por la utilización de la fórmula de Slovin con un margen de error del 7%. Para la recopilación de datos se utilizaron técnicas de muestreo por cuotas y cuestionarios distribuidos a través de Google Forms. La herramienta analítica utilizada es SEM PLS versión 4, que incorpora pruebas de validez y confianza, criterio de Fornell-Larcker, relación heterotraito-monotrato y prueba de hipótesis, con respuestas medidas en una escala Likert de 5 puntos. Los resultados indican que la calidad de vida laboral ecológica no afecta significativamente la retención de empleados ecológicos. Sin embargo, el compromiso de los empleados ecológicos y las recompensas ecológicas tienen un impacto significativo en la retención de empleados ecológicos. El aporte teórico de esta investigación radica en la aplicación de la teoría de la motivación financiera, particularmente en lo que respecta a la media más baja del primer indicador. Esta teoría podría ser valiosa como moderadora en futuros modelos de investigación. En la práctica, el estudio sugiere que aumentar los salarios y proporcionar conocimientos y capacitación como formas de experiencia adicional puede mejorar la retención de empleados.

Palabras clave: calidad de vida laboral ecológica; compromiso ecológico de los empleados; recompensas verdes; retención de empleados verdes
Clasificación JEL: L53; L84; M14; M21; M54; P21

1. Introduction

The performance of small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in Indonesia undeniably declined during the COVID-19 pandemic. Unfortunately, this decline has persisted post-pandemic. The prolonged period of inactivity during the pandemic led to a decrease in workers' skills levels due to reduced productivity. Consequently, when production resumed, the workforce's diminished skills caused increased work pressure, leading to terminations or voluntary departures. These job vacancies were subsequently filled by new employees, contributing to high turnover rates, which negatively impacted the short-term performance of Indonesian SMEs.

In an effort to improve performance, SMEs are increasingly adopting green management practices to attract environmentally conscious buyers. Green Human Resource Management (GHRM) integrates human resource management practices with environmental policies to involve employees in sustainability strategies, thereby achieving a sustainable competitive advantage (Chaudhary, 2020).

This research focuses on employees of SMEs, as defined by the Indonesian Ministry of Industry Regulation No. 64 of 2016 (Kementrian Perindustrian, 2023). The limited research on turnover intention within the SME sector in Indonesia highlights the need for this study, which aims to deepen understanding and provide solutions to address this issue.

Turnover often arises from employee dissatisfaction in the workplace (Chiat & Panatik, 2019), an unconducive environment (Kurniawaty et al., 2019), negative attitudes from superiors, work stress from excessive demands, and excessive workloads (Nurfitriani & Arwin, 2020). These factors can affect emotions, leading to poor communication, deteriorating mental health, lack of motivation, and job insecurity (Ramlawati et al., 2021). Consequently, companies suffer financial setbacks due to the loss of skilled employees, knowledge, and business relationships (Houssein et al., 2020; Stamolampros et al., 2019). Additionally, inadequate salaries and benefits can exacerbate turnover rates (Ashraf & Siddiqui, 2020). In the economic sector, Indonesian SMEs lag behind other countries, and high turnover further reduces their productivity.

Implementing green human resource management practices can enhance work-life balance and improve employee retention (Akpa et al., 2022; Aranganathan, 2018). Companies should therefore focus on job satisfaction, enjoyment, and happiness in the workplace, often referred to as Green Quality of Work Life (GQWL) (Siron, 2020). GQWL's success in promoting work-life balance depends on the level of Green Employee Engagement (GEE) (Bhende et al., 2020), which acts as a motivational mechanism influencing work outcomes (Aboramadan, 2022). GEE is crucial for fostering work-life balance, ultimately impacting organizational success and commitment (Sahni, 2019) and achieving long-term business goals (Machhi & Parmar, 2023).

To be effective, GEE efforts should be complemented by Green Rewards (GR), which serve as recognition and appreciation for employees' contributions to company goals. GR can modify employee behaviour (Amjad et al., 2021) and motivate them to align with the company's sustainability objectives (Baqir et al., 2020). This approach helps create a loyal, motivated, and effective workforce (Begum, 2023). Therefore, implementing Green Rewards can enhance efficiency, improve quality of work life, provide a sustainable competitive advantage (Houssein et al., 2020), and ultimately increase employee retention.

Addressing these challenges through GHRM research is crucial, as it offers significant contributions compared to previous research models. By promoting green environments and green organizations (Bangwal et al., 2017), GHRM can enhance employee retention (Ko, 2021) and help achieve SME goals (Al-Hajri, 2020).

2. Literature review

Human Resource Management (HRM) began to take shape in Europe in the 18th century, influenced by pioneers such as Robert Owen (1771-1858) and Charles Babbage (1791-1871) during the Industrial Revolution. With the current developments and the effects of global warming, Green Human Resource Management (GHRM) has emerged as a viable solution (Schuler & Jackson, 1987). GHRM aims to minimize environmental damage and create a sustainable employee environment (Arulrajah et al., 2016), thereby enhancing Green Quality of Work Life (GQWL) (Lau & May, 1998) and fostering Green Employee Engagement (GEE) (Bu et al., 2022). These practices contribute to the commitment and positive attitudes of employees towards their company (Evina et al., 2024).

3. Hypothesis development

3.1 The influence of green quality of work life on green employee retention

Low operational efficiency caused by a lack of environmentally friendly human resources can reduce effective management practices and employee initiative (Mosadeghrad, 2013). Therefore, the Green Quality of Work Life (GQWL) concept is essential for fostering employee satisfaction across various job aspects, including job satisfaction, working conditions, fair compensation, career development opportunities, task discretion, participation in decision-making, and work-life balance (Adhikari & Gautam, 2010). A high GQWL enables companies to benefit from enhanced employee efficiency, productivity, and sustainable profitability, while also increasing motivation and reducing workforce turnover (Saputra et al., 2024).

GQWL not only contributes to a company's ability to recruit talented employees but also promotes a more flexible, loyal, and engaged workforce (Nurhayati et al., 2022; Selvaraj, 2014). Consequently, GQWL positively influences employee retention by providing a better quality of life, leading to higher levels of employee retention (Puspitasari et al., 2024). The relationship between GQWL and employee retention is significant, as GQWL impacts overall retention (Saepuddin & Saputra, 2023).

An effective employee retention program can create and maintain an environment that encourages employees to remain with the organization. GQWL significantly impacts employee productivity and is proven to create positive physical and psychological effects, resulting in better employee satisfaction (Mamedu, 2017; Patil & Arpitha, 2023).

H1: Green Quality of Work Life has a positive and significant effect on Green Employee Retention.

3.2 The influence of green employee engagement on green employee retention

Green Employee Engagement (GEE) refers to the level of involvement and commitment of employees who are actively engaged, enthusiastic, and interested in their work (Shuck & Wollard, 2010). Employees in environmentally friendly companies are twice as likely to remain with the company (Patrice, 2011). Companies can design best practices based on findings to retain their best employees (Balakrishnan et al., 2013), indicating that while engagement alone may not suffice, it plays a crucial role in retaining top talent (Lindholm, 2013).

GEE has become an essential tool for facing competition and increasing growth opportunities, serving as an indicator of company goodwill (Agarwal, 2017). Engaged employees are less likely to change jobs frequently, consistently produce results, and serve as ambassadors for the company (Chandani et al., 2016). Therefore, companies must understand the importance of employee involvement to ensure satisfaction (Ashraf & Siddiqui, 2020). Engaged employees often express positive emotions such as happiness, joy, and enthusiasm, which indicate better health, self-generated work, and personal resources, ultimately enhancing their competence (Ngozi & Edwinah, 2022). This increased competence influences employee engagement, task identity, and enhances retention (Ibrahim et al., 2023).

H2: Green Employee Engagement has a positive and significant effect on Green Employee Retention.

3.3 The effect of green rewards on green employee retention

Green Rewards (GR) for performance are undeniably a powerful tool for motivating employees (Saputra & Renata, 2023). Proper GR management involves strategies, policies, and processes that recognize and appreciate employee contributions toward achieving company goals (Armstrong, 2010). This approach treats employees fairly, equally, and consistently based on their value to the company's business (Fatehi et al., 2015). Implementing strategies that meet diverse employee needs encourages them to stay with the company for longer periods (Sandhya, 2011) and helps address employee stress and problems (Hussain & Saleem, 2014).

To retain employees, companies primarily use their resources to provide attractive extrinsic rewards (Alhmoud & Rjoub, 2020). GR acknowledges the value of employees' time, energy, and skills, which means that a company's reward system can significantly influence employee performance and productivity, as well as their desire to remain with the organization (Khan, 2021). This GR approach plays a crucial role in realizing company commitments (Ng & Kadi, 2023) and can enhance employee retention.

H3: Green Rewards have a positive and significant effect on Green Employee Retention.

4. Research method

This study model was developed using several sources: the Green Quality of Work Life (GQWL) variable from Kim et al. (2021), the Green Employee Engagement (GEE) variable from Riyanto et al. (2021), the Green Rewards (GR) variable from Siegrist et al. (2004), and the Green Employee Retention (GER) variable from Elsafty and Oraby (2022). Combining research from both Indonesian (Riyanto) and international studies (Kim, Siegrist, and Elsafty) is significant as it aligns research evidence with the real problems faced by SMEs in Indonesia.

4.1 Population and sample

The population for this research consists of SME sector data from the Central Statistics Agency in 2023, totalling 296,075 individuals. Using the Slovin formula with a 7% margin of error, a sample size of 204 respondents was determined. Quota sampling was employed, and data was collected via a questionnaire distributed through Google Forms. Responses were measured on a 5-point Likert scale.

4.2 Analysis tools

The analysis was conducted using Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) with SmartPLS version 4 software. The first step involved testing validity and reliability, requiring Cronbach's Alpha and Composite Reliability values to be greater than 0.70, Average Variance Extracted (AVE) values to be greater than 0.50, and Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio (HTMT) values to be less than 0.90 (Hair et al., 2021).

5. Results

Table 1.Mean and loading factors* Lowest Mean ** Highest Mean *** <0.70 Invalid

Variable	Questionnaire items	Mean	Iteration of Outer Loading 1	Iteration of Outer Loading 2
Green Quality of Work Life (GQWL)	GQWL1: I feel physically safe at work.	3.848	0.748	0.753
	GQWL2: My job provides good health benefits.	3.564	0.657***	-
	GQWL3: I feel my job allows me to realize my full potential.	3.730	0.838	0.849
	GQWL4: I feel aware of my potential as an expert in my field of work.	3.843	0.800	0.811
	GQWL5: I feel like I am always learning new things to make my job better.	3.917**	0.781	0.784
	GQWL6: This job allows me to improve my professional skills.	3.897	0.807	0.816
	GQWL7: I am satisfied with the payment I receive for my work.	3.716*	0.758	0.739
	GQWL8: My work benefits my family.	3.804	0.747	0.725
	GQWL9: I feel that my job at my company is safe for life.	3.672	0.617***	-
	GQWL10: I feel appreciated when working at my company.	3.716*	0.729	0.738
	GQWL11: People who work at the company respect me as an expert in my field.	3.755	0.768	0.763
	GQWL12: My job requires me to express a certain level of creativity.	3.799	0.670***	-
	GQWL13: My work helps me develop a better appreciation for creativity, art, and aesthetics.	3.838	0.249***	-
Green Employee Engagement (GEE)	GEE1: I have a high level of energy in business.	3.765	0.689***	-
	GEE2: I have a strong determination and try my best to get the job done.	3.819	0.727	0.709
	GEE3: I don’t give up easily in completing work.	3.877	0.760	0.746
	GEE4: I persist in my work until it is finished.	3.838**	0.791	0.789
	GEE5: I am proud of my work, so it is difficult for me to leave this company.	3.613*	0.733	0.755
	GEE6: I am always enthusiastic at work.	3.696	0.773	0.791
	GEE7: Time flies quickly when I am working.	3.652	0.800	0.820
	GEE8: I really concentrate on doing my work.	3.755	0.760	0.765
	GEE9: I enjoy doing work assignments.	3.730	0.791	0.796
Green Rewards (GR)	GR1: I receive respect from my superiors.	3.672	0.792	0.792
	GR2: I am respected and appreciated by my colleagues.	3.711**	0.820	0.820
	GR3: I receive full support in difficult circumstances.	3.451*	0.837	0.837
	GR4: I am treated fairly where I work.	3.603	0.861	0.861
	GR5: For my efforts and achievements at work, I have earned respect and appreciation at my workplace.	3.593	0.818	0.818
Green Employee Retention (GER)	GER1: I want to work at this company for a long time.	3.436*	0.816	0.816
	GER2: I feel very satisfied doing this work.	3.652	0.854	0.854
	GER3: I feel I can develop my full potential at work.	3.657	0.891	0.891
	GER4: I feel that corporate development enhances my skills and expertise.	3.770**	0.835	0.834

Table 1 shows that in the first iteration, some questionnaire indicators were invalid, specifically GQWL2, GQWL9, GQWL12, GQWL13, and GEE1. Therefore, a second iteration was conducted, and the results from this iteration were used in subsequent calculations.

The reliability of this variable is acceptable because the values of Cronbach's Alpha and Composite Reliability are greater than or equal to 0.70, indicating reliability. The convergent validity, measured by the Average Variance Extracted (AVE), is also confirmed as it exceeds 0.50 (Hair et al., 2021).

Table 2.Cronbach's alpha, composite reliability, and average variance extracted (AVE)

Variable	Cronbach’s Alpha	Composite Reliability (rho_a)	Composite Reliability (rho_c)	AVE	Result
Green Quality of Work Life (GQWL)	0.920	0.949	0.932	0.603	Valid and Reliable
Green Employee Engagement (GEE)	0.903	0.905	0.922	0.596	Valid and Reliable
Green Rewards (GR)	0.884	0.891	0.915	0.682	Valid and Reliable
Green Employee Retention (GER)	0.871	0.878	0.912	0.721	Valid and Reliable

The correlation value of the related construct is higher than that of other constructs, indicating that the model has good discriminant validity. In this study, the lowest Fornell-Larcker Criterion score was for GEE (0.772), which is higher than the correlation between GEE and GQWL (0.086), confirming discriminant validity.

Table 3.Fornell-Larcker criterion

Variable	Green Quality of Work Life (GQWL)	Green Employee Engagement (GEE)	Green Rewards (GR)	Green Employee Retention (GER)
Green Quality of Work Life (GQWL)	0.776
Green Employee Engagement (GEE)	0.086	0.772
Green Rewards (GR)	0.071	0.727	0.826
Green Employee Retention (GER)	0.148	0.674	0.630	0.849

The required Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio (HTMT) should be less than 0.90 to meet the criteria for discriminant validity (Hair et al., 2019). The test results show that the HTMT value is indeed less than 0.90, confirming that discriminant validity is met.

Table 4.Heterotrait-Monotrait ratio (HTMT)

Variable	Green Quality of Work Life (GQWL)	Green Employee Engagement (GEE)	Green Rewards (GR)	Green Employee Retention (GER)
Green Quality of Work Life (GQWL)
Green Employee Engagement (GEE)	0.099
Green Rewards (GR)	0.117	0.816
Green Employee Retention (GER)	0.154	0.749	0.707

Based on the hypothesis testing above, the findings are as follows:

• The first hypothesis (H1) was rejected, indicating that there was no significant influence of GQWL on GER, with a path coefficient of 0.088 and a p-value of 0.234 (p > 0.05).

• The second hypothesis (H2) was accepted, indicating a significant influence of GEE on GER, with a path coefficient of 0.450 and a p-value of 0.000 (p < 0.05). However, the impact of GEE on increasing GER is moderate at the structural level (f² = 0.192). Therefore, there is a need for a GEE enhancement program, which is considered very important for GER, potentially increasing it by up to 0.603.

• The third hypothesis (H3) was accepted, indicating a significant influence of GR on GER, with a path coefficient of 0.297 and a p-value of 0.001 (p < 0.05). However, the impact of GR on increasing GER is low at the structural level (f² = 0.084). Thus, there is a need for a GR improvement program, which is considered important for GER, potentially increasing it by up to 0.484.

Table 5.Hypothesis test

Hypothesis	Path Coefficient	p-value	95% Confidence Interval Path Coefficient		f-squared
			Lower Bound	Upper Bound
Green Quality of Work Life (GQWL) -> Green Employee Retention (GER)	0.088	0.234	-0.140	0.215	0.015
Green Employee Engagement (GEE) -> Green Employee Retention (GER)	0.450	0.000	0.268	0.603	0.192
Green Rewards (GR) -> Green Employee Retention (GER)	0.297	0.001	0.142	0.484	0.084

Figure 1.Path coefficient p values

The R-squared statistic describes the variation in an endogenous variable that can be explained by other exogenous or endogenous variables in the model. Based on the results above, it can be said that the magnitude of the influence of GQWL, GEE, and GR on GER is 0.503. The remaining variation is attributed to other factors.

Table 6.Path coefficient p values

	Indicator	Result	Information
Green Employee Retention (GER)	R-squared	0.503	Low influence (0.25)
	R-squared adjusted	0.496	Moderate influence (0.50)
			High influence (0.70)

Table 7 shows that the SRMR result of 0.066 is acceptable because it is less than the criterion value of 0.08 (Hair et al., 2021). The confidence intervals for d_ULS and d_G are not obtained using a “normal” bootstrap approach, so there is no correlation between the d_ULS (squared Euclidean distance) and d_G (geodetic distance) values. Additionally, chi-squared is sensitive to sample size and should not be used as the sole measure of overall model fit. Even though the difference between the sample covariance matrix and the model covariance matrix is minimal to moderate, as the sample size increases, the chi-squared value also increases, potentially leading to the rejection of the model. Lastly, NFI values range from 0 to 1, with values greater than 0.9 typically representing an acceptable fit (Bentler & Bonett, 1980).

Table 7.Fit model

Indicator	Result	Cutoff for Fit Model
SRMR	0.066	<=0.08
d_ULS	1.542	>=0.95
d_G	0.686	P >=0.05
Chi-squared	792.115	Close to zero
NFI	0.786	>=0.90

The Q-squared value is greater than 0.25 and less than 0.50, indicating that Q-squared has a moderate influence.

Table 8.Q-squared

	Result	Information
Q-squared	0.474	Low influence (0)
		Moderate influence (0.25)
		High influence (0.50)

The GoF index value is obtained from the square root of the product of the average communality index and the average R-squared value. The GoF index indicates a high level of goodness-of-fit.

Table 9.Goodness of fit index (GoF Index)

	Result	Information
GoF index	0.558	Low influence (0)
		Moderate influence (0.25)
		High influence (0.50)

Based on the processing results of four observations on the RMSE and MAE values of four measurement items, the PLS model shows lower RMSE and MAE values compared to the LM model (linear regression). This indicates that the proposed PLS model has higher predictive power.

Table 10.PLS predict

Measurement Items	PLS		LM
	RMSE	MAE	RMSE	MAE
Green Employee Retention (GER1)	0.771	0.612	0.789	0.639
Green Employee Retention (GER2)	0.622	0.476	0.589	0.441
Green Employee Retention (GER3)	0.568	0.437	0.594	0.458
Green Employee Retention (GER4)	0.592	0.458	0.633	0.480

6. Discussion

6.1 Green quality of work life has no effect on green employee retention

The first finding of this research is that respondents are not satisfied with the salaries they receive and that employee rewards are not optimal. This is confirmed by the lowest means for GQWL7: “I am satisfied with the payment I receive for my work” and GQWL10: “I feel appreciated when working at my company”. This indicates that the GQWL variable has not significantly impacted employee development or progress.

The impact of these issues is substantial, leading to employee discomfort and dissatisfaction, which results in intentions to leave the workplace (Abdien, 2019). Efforts to retain and empower employees can produce better work standards (Afkhami et al., 2020) by providing appropriate incentives and a healthy work environment (Karthick & Ramachandran, 2018). Therefore, it is crucial to create a Green Quality of Work Life based on employee perceptions (Harikrishnan & Kumari, 2019). This should begin with periodically increasing welfare as motivation, providing appropriate incentives, and conducting employee assessments to achieve the best performance aligned with organizational goals (Leitão et al., 2019), thereby reducing the intention to leave the company.

6.2 Green employee engagement has a positive and significant effect on green employee retention

The second finding of this research is the passion and persistence in completing work, highlighted by the highest mean for GEE4: “I persist in my work until it is finished”. This indicator proves that the employee's relationship with their work is very strong, and that they have a high level of responsibility.

When employees feel involved and motivated by attractive green environmental practices from their employer, their performance improves (Easa & Bazzi, 2020). This motivation is directly linked to work and increases their commitment and performance (Tsareva & Boldyhanova, 2020). Creating employee commitment aims to increase the company's success (Susanto, 2022) through various innovations and strategic plans. Additionally, engagement and productivity increase as employees understand the value of the company's goals (Bhakuni & Saxena, 2023) and work in a positive, collaborative environment. This fosters a sense of responsibility at work and helps employees balance their professional and personal lives (Wood et al., 2020).

6.3 Green rewards have a positive and significant effect on green employee retention

Mutual respect among employees is the highest form of reward, which is the third finding of this research. This is reflected in the highest mean for GR2: “I am respected and appreciated by my colleagues”. This finding highlights the importance of mutual respect and fair treatment among employees, which encourages active contributions to business sustainability and job satisfaction (Mosquera et al., 2020).

While Green Rewards are not the only important influencing factor, they can significantly increase employee retention (Khalid & Nawab, 2018) and indirectly enhance employee commitment (Puni et al., 2021) through fair reward practices and mutual respect for task contributions (Kollmann et al., 2020). Additionally, performance-based rewards positively influence job satisfaction (Froese et al., 2019), as receiving rewards is highly valued for the meaningfulness of work (Akgunduz et al., 2020). Green Rewards also foster positive creativity among employees with high performance goal orientation (Malik et al., 2019). Focusing on collaborative training, effective performance evaluations, and aligned reward policies can sustain better results (Mihardjo et al., 2020).

6.4 Theoretical and practical contributions

An interesting finding of this research is that the salaries and rewards received by employees are not satisfactory. This indicates that Green Quality of Work Life should be linked to financial motivation theory. This contribution is significant as it suggests that Green Quality of Work Life should not only focus on improving the quality of work for a better life but also ensure adequate salaries and rewards as benchmarks for Quality of Work Life.

To enhance Green Quality of Work Life, this research provides practical contributions, such as increasing knowledge, conducting workshops, and offering training as forms of additional expertise to improve salaries and rewards. The expectation is that these efforts will enhance the Green Quality of Work Life.

6.5 Future research

Future research models can be developed by incorporating financial motivation as a new variable or indicator to bridge the gap between reality and theory. This theory would be effective as a moderator in further research models, as the insignificant results of this study suggest the need for stronger variables or indicators to address the problem more effectively.

References

Abdien, M. (2019). Impact of communication satisfaction and work-life balance on employee turnover intention. Journal of Tourism Theory and Research, 5(2), 228–238. https://doi.org/10.24288/jttr.526678

Aboramadan, M. (2022). The effect of green HRM on employee green behaviors in higher education: the mediating mechanism of green work engagement. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 30(1), 7–23. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-05-2020-2190

Adhikari, D. R., & Gautam, D. K. (2010). Labor legislations for improving quality of work life in Nepal. International Journal of Law and Management, 52(1), 40–53. https://doi.org/10.1108/17542431011018534

Afkhami, P., Sepasi, H., & Nourbakhsh, P. (2020). Designing a model for swimming coaches' job retention based on talent management and quality of working life. Annals of Applied Sport Science, 8(3). https://doi.org/10.29252/aassjournal.793

Agarwal, R. (2017). Employee engagement & retention: a review of literature. International Journal of BRIC Business Research, 6(1), 01–19. https://doi.org/10.14810/ijbbr.2017.6101

Akgunduz, Y., Adan Gök, Ö., & Alkan, C. (2020). The effects of rewards and proactive personality on turnover intentions and meaning of work in hotel businesses. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 20(2), 170–183. https://doi.org/10.1177/1467358419841097

Akpa, V. O., Mowaiye, B., Akinlabi, B. H., & Magaji, N. (2022). Effect of green human resource management practices and green work life balance on employee retention in selected hospitality firms in Lagos and Ogun States, Nigeria. European Journal of Human Resource Management Studies, 5(4). https://doi.org/10.46827/ejhrms.v5i4.1265

Al-Hajri, S. A. (2020). Employee retention in light of green HRM practices through the intervening role of work engagement. Annals of Contemporary Developments in Management & HR, 2(4), 10–19. https://doi.org/10.33166/ACDMHR.2020.04.002

Alhmoud, A., & Rjoub, H. (2020). Does generation moderate the effect of total rewards on employee retention? Evidence from Jordan. SAGE Open, 10(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244020957039

Amjad, F., Abbas, W., Zia-UR-Rehman, M., Baig, S. A., Hashim, M., Khan, A., & Rehman, H. (2021). Effect of green human resource management practices on organizational sustainability: the mediating role of environmental and employee performance. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(22), 28191–28206. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-11307-9

Aranganathan, P. (2018). Green recruitment, a new-fangled approach to attract and retain talent. International Journal of Business Management & Research, 8(2), 69–76. https://doi.org/10.24247/ijbmrapr20189

Armstrong, M. (2010). Armstrong's handbook of reward management practice: Improving performance through reward. Kogan Page Publishers

Arulrajah, A. A., Opatha, H. H. D. N. P., & Nawaratne, N. N. J. (2016). Green human resource management practices: A review. Sri Lankan Journal of Human Resource Management, 5(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.4038/sljhrm.v5i1.5624

Ashraf, T., & Siddiqui, D. A. (2020). The impact of employee engagement on employee retention: The role of psychological capital, control at work, general well-being and job satisfaction. Human Resource Research, 4(1), 67. https://doi.org/10.5296/hrr.v4i1.16477

Balakrishnan, C., Masthan, D., & Chandra, V. (2013). Employee retention through employee engagement-a study at an Indian international airport

Bangwal, D., Tiwari, P., & Chamola, P. (2017). Green HRM, work-life and environment performance. International Journal of Environment, Workplace and Employment, 4(3), 244. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJEWE.2017.087808

Baqir, M., Hussain, S., Waseem, R., & Islam, K. M. A. (2020). Impact of reward and recognition, supervisor support on employee engagement. American International Journal of Business and Management Studies, 8–21. https://doi.org/10.46545/aijbms.v2i3.256

Begum, V. V. (2023). Influence of green rewards on organisational performance. Journal of Interdisciplinary and Multidisciplinary Research (JIMR), 18(7)

Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88(3), 588–606. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.88.3.588

Bhakuni, S., & Saxena, S. (2023). Exploring the link between training and development, employee engagement and employee retention. Journal of Business and Management Studies, 5(1), 173–180. https://doi.org/10.32996/jbms.2023.5.1.17

Bhende, P., Mekoth, N., Ingalhalli, V., & Reddy, Y. V. (2020). Quality of work life and work–life balance. Journal of Human Values, 26(3), 256–265. https://doi.org/10.1177/0971685820939380

Bu, X., Cherian, J., Han, H., Comite, U., Hernández-Perlines, F., & Ariza-Montes, A. (2022). Proposing employee level CSR as an enabler for economic performance: The role of work engagement and quality of work-life. Sustainability, 14(3), 1354. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14031354

Chandani, A., Mehta, M., Mall, A., & Khokhar, V. (2016). Employee engagement: A review paper on factors affecting employee engagement. Indian Journal of Science and Technology, 9(15). https://doi.org/10.17485/ijst/2016/v9i15/92145

Chaudhary, R. (2020). Green human resource management and employee green behavior: An empirical analysis. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27(2), 630–641. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1827

Chiat, L. C., & Panatik, S. A. (2019). Perceptions of Employee Turnover Intention by Herzberg's Motivation-Hygiene Theory: A Systematic Literature Review. Journal of Research in Psychology, 1(2), 10–15. https://doi.org/10.31580/jrp.v1i2.949

Easa, N. F., & Bazzi, A. M. (2020). The influence of employer branding on employer attractiveness and employee engagement and retention. International Journal of Customer Relationship Marketing and Management, 11(4), 48–69. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJCRMM.2020100104

Elsafty, A., & Oraby, M. (2022). The impact of training on employee retention. International Journal of Business and Management, 17(5), 58. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v17n5p58

Evina, E., Saputra, A. R. P., & Nuvriasari, A. (2024). Green training, green recruitment, and green transformational leadership on employee performance in retail store. International Journal of Management, Knowledge and Learning, 13. https://doi.org/10.53615/2232-5697.13.13-27

Fatehi, B., Karimi, A., Pour, E. G., Pour, K. A., & ... (2015). Impact of quality of work life on job satisfaction. International Journal of Sport Studies, 5(1), 79–86

Froese, F. J., Peltokorpi, V., Varma, A., & Hitotsuyanagi‐Hansel, A. (2019). Merit‐based rewards, job satisfaction and voluntary turnover: Moderating effects of employee demographic characteristics. British Journal of Management, 30(3), 610–623. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12283

Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M., Danks, N. P., & Ray, S. (2021). Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) Using R: A workbook. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-80519-7

Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review, 31(1), 2–24. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203

Harikrishnan, D. A., & Kumari, M. S. (2019). Quality of work life on employee retention in private sector companies: with special reference to factories of woollen garments in Ludhiana. International Journal of Research and Analytical Reviews

Houssein, A., Singh, J., & Arumugam, T. (2020). Retention of employees through career development, employee engagement and work-life balance: An empirical study among employees in the financial sector in Djibouti, East Africa. Global Business and Management Research: An International Journa, 12(3)

Hussain, T., & Saleem, S. (2014). Do employees' job satisfaction, involvement and commitment mediate relationship between quality of work life and employees' retention? World Applied Sciences Journal, 30(2)

Ibrahim, I., Ali, K., Alzoubi, I. A., Alzubi, M. M., AL-Tahitah, A., & Kadhim, K. G. (2023). Impact of employee's engagement and task identity on employee's retention strategy mediated by job satisfaction. In B. Alareeni, & A. Hamdan (Eds.), Sustainable finance, digitalization and the role of technology. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-08084-5_40

Karthick, K. K., & Ramachandran, K. K. (2018). Role of (QWL) quality of work life on employee retention in private sector companies. International Journal of Social Sciences, 8(11), 2249–2496

Kementrian Perindustrian (2023). Peraturan [Biro Hukum 2023]. Kementrian Perindustrian Republik Indonesia

Khalid, K., & Nawab, S. (2018). Employee participation and employee retention in view of compensation. SAGE Open, 8(4), 215824401881006. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244018810067

Khan, U. (2021). Effect of employee retention on organizational performance. Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management, and Innovation, 2(1), 52–66. https://doi.org/10.52633/jemi.v2i1.47

Kim, H., Im, J., & Shin, Y. H. (2021). The impact of transformational leadership and commitment to change on restaurant employees' quality of work life during a crisis. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 48, 322–330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2021.07.010

Ko, M. C. (2021). An examination of the links between organizational social capital and employee well-being: Focusing on the mediating role of quality of work life. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 41(1), 163–193. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X19865996

Kollmann, T., Stöckmann, C., Kensbock, J. M., & Peschl, A. (2020). What satisfies younger versus older employees, and why? An aging perspective on equity theory to explain interactive effects of employee age, monetary rewards, and task contributions on job satisfaction. Human Resource Management, 59(1), 101–115. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21981

Kurniawaty, K., Ramly, M., & Ramlawati, R. (2019). The effect of work environment, stress, and job satisfaction on employee turnover intention. Management Science Letters, 877–886. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.msl.2019.3.001

Lau, R. S. M., & May, B. E. (1998). A win‐win paradigm for quality of work life and business performance. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 9(3), 211–226. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.3920090302

Leitão, J., Pereira, D., & Gonçalves, Â. (2019). Quality of work life and organizational performance: Workers' feelings of contributing, or not, to the organization's productivity. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(20), 3803. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16203803

Lindholm, R. (2013). Managing retention by engaging employees in a case company. Bachelor's thesis, 52

Machhi, A., & Parmar, C. (2023). A study on impact of green HR practices on employee engagement and retention. International Journal of Research Publication and Reviews, 4(2), 1552–1559

Malik, M. A. R., Choi, J. N., & Butt, A. N. (2019). Distinct effects of intrinsic motivation and extrinsic rewards on radical and incremental creativity: The moderating role of goal orientations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40(9-10), 1013–1026. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2403

Mamedu, O. P. (2017). Quality of work-life and university goal attainment perception by academic staff in the South-south geo-political zone of Nigeria. American Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 4, 2017, Pages 1323-1336, 4(20)

Mihardjo, L. W. W., Jermsittiparsert, K., Ahmed, U., Chankoson, T., & Iqbal Hussain, H. (2020). Impact of key HR practices (human capital, training and rewards) on service recovery performance with mediating role of employee commitment of the Takaful industry of the Southeast Asian region. Education + Training, 63(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-08-2019-0188

Mosadeghrad, A. M. (2013). Quality of working life: An antecedent to employee turnover intention. International Journal of Health Policy and Management, 1(1), 43–50. https://doi.org/10.15171/ijhpm.2013.07

Mosquera, P., Soares, M. E., & Oliveira, D. (2020). Do intrinsic rewards matter for real estate agents? Journal of European Real Estate Research, 13(2), 207–222. https://doi.org/10.1108/JERER-12-2019-0051

Ng, S. T. K., & Kadi, O. E. (2023). Reimagining reward management: An exploration of total reward perspectives and their impact on employee retention and motivation. Revista Científica Global Negotium, 6(3). https://publishing.fgu-edu.com/ojs/index.php/RGN/article/view/381

Ngozi, D., & Edwinah, A. (2022). Employee engagement and talent retention: a review. South Asian Research Journal of Biology and Applied Biosciences, 4(5), 188–197. https://doi.org/10.36346/sarjbm.2022.v04i05.003

Nurfitriani, N., & Arwin, A. (2020). The effect of work stress on employee turnover intention in Pt Bank Rakyat Indonesia Makassar Branch Ahmad Yani. Journal of Applied Business Administration, 4(2), 227–234. https://doi.org/10.30871/jaba.v4i2.2128

Nurhayati, M., Saputra, A. R. P., Santosa, A., Rahmani, S., & Ariyanto, E. (2022). Impact of work-school conflict to employee performance: Moderation of perception organizational support and work characteristics. MIX: Jurnal Ilmiah Manajemen, 12(2), 237. https://doi.org/10.22441/jurnal_mix.2022.v12i2.005

Patil, R. N., & Arpitha, A. (2023). A study on “employee motivation on TDPS”. International Journal of English Literature and Social Sciences, 8(1), 102–107. https://doi.org/10.22161/ijels.81.13

Patrice, M. W. (2011). The relationship between employee engagement and employee retention in an Acute Healthcare Hospital. ProQuest. Walden University

Puni, A., Hilton, S. K., & Quao, B. (2021). The interaction effect of transactional-transformational leadership on employee commitment in a developing country. Management Research Review, 44(3), 399–417. https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-03-2020-0153

Puspitasari, K. A., Saputra, A. R. P., & Casmi, E. (2024). Nostalgic marketing and its antecedents on gen X. International Journal of Professional Business Review, 9(1), e04251. https://doi.org/10.26668/businessreview/2024.v9i1.4251

Ramlawati, R., Trisnawati, E., Yasin, N. A., & Kurniawaty, K. (2021). External alternatives, job stress on job satisfaction and employee turnover intention. Management Science Letters, 511–518. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.msl.2020.9.016

Riyanto, S., Endri, E., & Herlisha, N. (2021). Effect of work motivation and job satisfaction on employee performance: Mediating role of employee engagement. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 19(3), 162–174. https://doi.org/10.21511/ppm.19(3).2021.14

Saepuddin, A., & Saputra, A. R. P. (2023). Effect of leadership training, welfare, and mental health in the work environment on the performance of employees in Bekasi Regency. The American Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences Research, 6(3), 89–98

Sahni, J. (2019). Role of quality of work life in determining employee engagement and organizational commitment in telecom industry. International Journal for Quality Research, 13(2), 285–300. https://doi.org/10.24874/IJQR13.02-03

Sandhya, K. (2011). Employee retention by motivation. Indian Journal of Science and Technology, 4(12), 1778–1782. https://doi.org/10.17485/ijst/2011/v4i12.34

Saputra, A. R. P., & Renata, G. R. (2023). Pengaruh green training, green recruitment and selection dan green empowerment terhadap green performance management di Bengkel Sepeda Motor AHASS Bantul. Trending: Jurnal Manajemen Dan Ekonomi, 1(14)

Saputra, A. R. P., Widarta, W., & Iswiyanto, I. (2024). The impact of green training, green reward, and green recruitment on organizational citizenship behavior for environment. International Journal of Human Capital in Urban Management, 9(1), 75–84. https://doi.org/10.22034/IJHCUM.2024.01.06

Schuler, R. S., & Jackson, S. E. (1987). Linking competitive strategies with human resource management practices. Academy of Management Perspectives, 1(3), 207–219. https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.1987.4275740

Selvaraj, S. N. (2014). A study on review of quality of work life on employee retention in private companies. International Journal of Social Science and Humanities Research, 2(3)

Shuck, B., & Wollard, K. (2010). Employee engagement and HRD: A seminal review of the foundations. Human Resource Development Review, 9(1), 89–110. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484309353560

Siegrist, J., Starke, D., Chandola, T., Godin, I., Marmot, M., Niedhammer, I., & Peter, R. (2004). The measurement of effort–reward imbalance at work: European comparisons. Social Science & Medicine, 58(8), 1483–1499. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(03)00351-4

Siron, R. (2020). The study on green quality of work life for public sector employees. https://doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2020.12.05.80

Stamolampros, P., Korfiatis, N., Chalvatzis, K., & Buhalis, D. (2019). Job satisfaction and employee turnover determinants in high contact services: Insights from employees' online reviews. Tourism Management, 75, 130–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2019.04.030

Susanto, P. C. (2022). Employee engagement strategy: analysis of organizational commitment, compensation, career development. Paper presented at International conference of humanities and social science (ICHSS), Fukuoka, Japan

Tsareva, N. A., & Boldyhanova, V. A. (2020). Educating the concepts of retention factor of a company with the case of employee engagement level increase. Propósitos y Representaciones, 8(3). https://doi.org/10.20511/pyr2020.v8n3.515

Wood, J., Oh, J., Park, J., & Kim, W. (2020). The relationship between work engagement and work–life balance in organizations: a review of the empirical research. Human Resource Development Review, 19(3), 240–262. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484320917560