Toward a Framework of Human Capital Sustain-ability:Institutional and Managerial Perspectives

While conventional sustainability models prioritize environmental and economic factors,they largely neglect the critical dimension of human capital.The provided commentary explores this overlooked aspect by synthesizing a broad range of research to develop and systematically analyze the concept of human capital sustainability (HCS).The work argues that while corporate rhetoric often labels employees as their “most valuable resource”,organizational systems rarely treat the workforce with the long-term stewardship given to natural or financial capital.The analysis unpacks this concept from two distinct but interconnected viewpoints:the institutional perspective,which focuses on societal policies and systemic risks,and the managerial perspective,which examines workplace conditions and psychological mechanisms.While the institutional perspective diagnoses the large-scale societal problem,the managerial perspective offers crucial insights into how these problems manifest within organizations through daily practices. From an institutional perspective,the societal costs of unsustainable work practices are staggering.Global data indicate an estimated 3 million fatalities from occupational causes annually,with the economic burden of such incidents costing nearly 4% of the world's Gross Domestic Product.In the United States,the incidence rate remains significant despite a downward trend,translating to a 75% chance of an individual experiencing a workplace injury over a 30-year career.These systemic harms are linked to specific institutional risk factors,which are often embedded in public policy,legal frameworks,and widespread economic practices.For example,a study found that legislation limiting shareholder litigation rights was followed by a significant 28% increase in workplace injury rates,suggesting that diminished oversight can lead to a reduced focus on employee safety. Beyond regulatory oversight,other institutional risks directly impact employee well-being.A primary concern is inadequate health insurance,as underinsured workers often face higher fatality rates.In contrast,studies have shown that gaining universal health coverage can reduce mortality rates by a remarkable 20%.In addition to health coverage,job security itself is a critical factor,as layoffs also have severe health consequences,with studies reporting a 44% increase in mortality rates in the years following job loss and a dramatic 600% increase in violent behavior.Work-family conflict,driven by excessive hours like the “996” culture,is a significant contributor to poor health,increasing hypertension risk by 29%.Furthermore,organizational inequality creates profound health disparities,with the landmark “Whitehall Studies”demonstrating that employees in the lowest hierarchical grades have mortality rates nearly three times higher than those in top positions,a gap attributed to psychosocial factors like job control.These factors collectively are estimated to cause approximately 120000 excess deaths and 180 billion in additional healthcare costs each year in the U.S.alone. Shifting to the managerial perspective,the commentary examines how specific management practices and workplace conditions directly impact employees.A key indicator of unsustainable management is employee turnover,which carries substantial hidden costs,with one longitudinal study finding that productivity declined for seven months following a manager-employee departure.Common policies like pay-for-performance,while intended to motivate,have been linked to a more than 5% increase in the use of anxiety and depression medication.Workplace aggression and incivility are also identified as a potent threat.Experimental research has proven that even mild rudeness significantly impairs cognitive functions like memory and creativity,creating a hidden tax on employee productivity and innovation,and in high-stakes medical simulations,it has led to critical performance errors. The commentary delves into the cognitive mechanisms behind these impacts.From a cognitive psychology standpoint,rudeness depletes finite working memory resources as employees are forced to interpret the ambiguous threat.Beyond individual cognition,incivility also harms team performance by reducing “social value orientation”,causing individuals to become self-focused and less effective at sharing information.The negative effects extend beyond direct victims; studies show that even witnesses to workplace injuries can exhibit declines in cognitive functioning,such as slower processing speed and reduced impulse control,which in turn predict future injury risk.These findings underscore that managerial practices have measurable and often unconscious physiological and cognitive consequences for the workforce. Building on this analysis,the commentary proposes a forward-looking research agenda.The central challenge is to reconcile the tension between short-term organizational pressures and the long-term viability of the workforce.The agenda calls for addressing emerging challenges that threaten HCS,including the impact of artificial intelligence (AI) on employment security and workload,the precarity of the gig economy,and the needs of an aging workforce.Future work should also apply theoretical lenses like the Conservation of Resources (COR) theory to understand how employees dynamically allocate personal resources over time under different work conditions,providing a richer model of employee strain and recovery.Furthermore,practical interventions like on-site health services and no-layoff policies warrant further investigation. In conclusion,the work advocates for a paradigm shift toward a more proactive and cognitively informed approach to designing work systems.It argues that HCS is not a peripheral concern but a core component of the overall sustainability strategy.The findings highlight the urgent need to integrate human well-being into organizational and societal priorities to foster work environments that support both high performance and the long-term health and sustainability of the workforce Furthermore,this discourse encourages researchers to conduct more targeted assessments of digitalization's carbon emission effects,particularly in relation to its application within various industries in China. As digital technologies continue to evolve,policymakers and stakeholders must acquire a holistic and objective understanding of the carbon reduction effects attributed to digitalization. By doing so,strategic decisions can be made that leverage digital advancements to foster economic growth while simultaneously addressing pressing environmental challenges. Overall,the intersection of digitalization and climate change remains a fertile ground for academic exploration,necessitating a balanced integration of theoretical and empirical approaches to elucidate the complex relationships at play. Understanding these dynamics not only aids in effective policymaking but also contributes to the broader discourse on sustainability and climate resilience in the face of ongoing technological advancements.