Efectos de las políticas de recursos humanos socialmente responsables en el capital intelectual

  1. Jesús Barrena-Martínez 1
  2. Macarena López Fernández 1
  3. Pedro Miguel Romero Fernández 1
  1. 1 Universidad de Cádiz
    info

    Universidad de Cádiz

    Cádiz, España

    ROR https://ror.org/04mxxkb11

Revista:
Intangible Capital

ISSN: 1697-9818

Año de publicación: 2016

Volumen: 12

Número: 2

Páginas: 549-590

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.3926/IC.738 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Otras publicaciones en: Intangible Capital

Resumen

Objeto: La presente investigación se centra en los beneficios que la responsabilidad social puede reportar al área de recursos humanos, examinado el impacto que una configuración de políticas y prácticas de recursos humanos socialmente responsable tiene en la generación de valor de la empresa, y más concretamente en su capital intelectual. Diseño/metodología: El estudio realiza un análisis de regresión, testando los efectos individuales de las políticas de recursos humanos socialmente responsables en el capital intelectual, desglosado en tres variables principales como son capital humano, social y organizacional. Aportaciones y resultados: Los resultados del estudio arrojan luz sobre cómo la introducción de aspectos socialmente responsables en la gestión de los recursos humanos puede facilitar el intercambio de conocimientos, habilidades y actitudes -capital humano-; inducir a mejoras en la comunicación, confianza, cooperación entre los empleados -capital social- y, a su vez, generar un conocimiento institucionalizado codificado en la propia cultura organizativa -capital organizacional–. Limitaciones: El estudio solo proporciona información de grandes empresas de más de 250 empleados. Implicaciones prácticas: Existen importantes repercusiones en lo que a la medida de la responsabilidad social corporativa se refiere en el área de recursos humanos. Implicaciones sociales: Asimismo, se confirman importantes efectos sobre variables intangibles de carácter no económico, como es el caso del capital intelectual. Valor añadido: El valor del estudio reside en su novedad, testando configuraciones de

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Alama-Salazar, M. (2009). Capital intelectual y resultados empresariales en las empresas de servicios profesionales de España. Tesis Doctoral. Universidad Complutense de Madrid.
  • Andriessen, D. (2004). IC valuation and measurement: Classifying the state of the art. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 5(2), 230-242. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14691930410533669.
  • Astigarraga, E. (2005). El método Delphi. San Sebastián: Universidad de Deusto.
  • Barreto, I., & Baden-Fuller, C. (2006). To conform or to perform? Mimetic behaviour, legitimacy-based groups and performance consequences. Journal of Management Studies, 43(7), 1559-1581. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2006.00620.x.
  • Barney, J.B. (1991). Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99-120. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700108.
  • Bigné, E., Chumpitaz, R., Andreu, L., & Swaen, V. (2005). Percepción de la responsabilidad social corporativa: Un análisis cross-cultural. Universia Business Review, 5(1), 14-27.
  • Brammer, S., Millington, A., & Rayton, B. (2007). The contribution of corporate social responsibility to organizational commitment. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18(10), 1701-1719. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585190701570866.
  • Brewster, C. (1999). Strategic Human Resource Management: The Value of Different Paradigms. Management International Review, 39(3), 45-64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-322-90993-0_5.
  • Brewster, C., Mayrhofer, W., & Morley, M. (2004). Human Resource Management in Europe-Evidence of Convergence?. London: Butterworth-Heineman.
  • Buciuniene, I., & Kazlauskaite, R. (2012). The linkage between HRM, CSR and performance outcomes. Baltic Journal of Management, 7(1), 5-24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17465261211195856.
  • Carroll, A.B. (1999). Corporate social responsibility. Business & Society, 38(3), 268-295. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/000765039903800303.
  • Carroll, A.B., & Shabana, K. (2010). The Business Case for Corporate Social Responsibility: A Review of Concepts, Research and Practice. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(1), 85-105. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2009.00275.x.
  • Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P.E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decisions Processes, 86(2), 278-321. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/obhd.2001.2958.
  • Comisión Europea (2011). Estrategia renovada de la UE para 2011-2014 sobre la responsabilidad social de las empresas. Bruselas 25 de Octubre.
  • Dacin, M.T. (1997). Isomorphism in context: The power and prescription of institutional norms. Academy of Management Journal, 40(1), 46-81. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/257020.
  • Dacin, M.T., Kostova, Y., & Roth, K. (2008). Institutional Theory in the Study of Multinational Corporations: A critique and new directions. The Academy of Management Review, 33(4), 994-1006. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2008.34422026.
  • Dahlsrud, A. (2008). How corporate social responsibility is defined: An analysis of 37 definitions. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 15(1), 1-13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/csr.132.
  • Delaney, J.T., & Huselid, M.A. (1996). The impact of human resource management practices on performance in for-profit and nonprofit organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 39(4), 949-969. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256718.
  • Delery, J.E., & Doty, D.H. (1996). Modes of theorizing in strategic human resource management: Tests of universalistic, contingency, and configurational performance predictions. Academy of Management Journal, 39(4), 802-835. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256713.
  • Donaldson, T., & Preston, L.E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence and implications. The Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65-91.
  • Elkington, J. (1998). Cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st century business. Gabriola Island, British Columbia, Canada: New Society.
  • Fernández-Allés, M., & Valle-Cabrera, R. (2006). Reconciling institutional theory with organizational theories: How neoinstitutionalism resolves five paradoxes. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 19(4), 503-517. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09534810610676699.
  • Ferris, G.R., Arthur, M.M., Berkson, H.M., Kaplan, D.M., Harrell-Cook, G., & Frink, D.D. (1998). Toward a social context theory of the human resource management-organization effectiveness relationship. Human Resource Management Review, 8(3), 235-264. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1053-4822(98)90004-3.
  • Freeman, R.E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.
  • Freeman, R.E., Harrison, J.S., Wicks, A.C., Parmar, B.L., & De Colle, S. (2010). Stakeholder Theory: The State of the Art. Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511815768.
  • Freeman, R.E., & Liedtka, J. (1991). Corporate Social Responsibility: A Critical Approach. Business Horizons, 34(4), 92-98. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0007-6813(91)90012-K.
  • Fuentes-Ganzo, E. (2006). La responsabilidad social corporativa. Su dimension normativa: implicaciones para las empresas españolas. Pecvnia, 3, 1-20. http://dx.doi.org/10.18002/pec.v0i3.726.
  • Galbreath, J. (2010). How does corporate social responsibility benefit firms? Evidence from Australia. European Business Review, 22(4), 411-431. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09555341011056186.
  • Greenwood, M., & Anderson, E. (2009). I used to be an employee but now I am a stakeholder: Implications of labelling employees as stakeholders. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 47(2), 186-200. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1038411109105441.
  • Global Reporting Iniatiative (GRI) (2002). Sustainability Reporting Guidelines. GRI, Boston, MA.
  • Global Reporting Iniatiative (GRI) (2006). Sustainability Reporting Guidelines. GRI, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
  • Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) (2011). Sustainability Reporting Guidelines. Disponible online en: https://www.globalreporting.org/resourcelibrary/G3.1-Sustainability-Reporting-Guidelines.pdf.
  • Guest, D.E. (1997). Human resource management and performance: A review and research agenda. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 8(3), 263-276. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/095851997341630.
  • Guthrie, J. (2001). High-Involvement work practices, turnover, and productivity: Evidence from New Zealand. Academy of Management Journal, 44(1), 180-190. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3069345.
  • Henson, R.K., & Roberts, J.K. (2006). Use of Exploratory Factor Analysis in Published Research: Common Errors and Some Comment on Improved Practice. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(3), 393-416. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013164405282485.
  • Huselid, M.A. (1995). The Impact of Human Resource Management Practices on Turnover, Productivity, and Corporate Financial Performance. Academy of Management Journal, 38(3), 635-672. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256741.
  • Ichniowski, C., & Shaw, K. (1999). The Effects of Human Resource Management Systems on Economic Performance: An International Comparison of U.S. and Japanese Plants. Management Science, 45(5), 704-721. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.45.5.704.
  • Jackson, S.E., & Schuler, R.S. (1995). Understanding Human Resource Management in the Context of Organizations and their Environments. Annual Review of Psychology, 46(1), 237-264. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.46.020195.001321.
  • Kang, S.C., & Snell, S.A. (2009). Intellectual Capital Architectures and Ambidextrous Learning: A Framework for Human Resource Management. Journal of Management Studies, 46(1), 65-92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2008.00776.x.
  • Kim, H.R., Lee, M., Lee, H.T., & Kim, N.M. (2010). Corporate Social Responsibility and Employee-Company Identification. Journal of Business Ethics, 95(4), 557-569. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0440-2.
  • Marimon, F., Alonso-Almeida, M.D.M., Rodríguez, M.D.P., & Cortez Alejandro, K.A. (2012). The worldwide diffusion of the global reporting initiative: What is the point?. Journal of Cleaner Production, 33, 132-144. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.04.017.
  • Mittal, R.K., Sinha, N., & Singh, A. (2008). An analysis of linkage between economic value added and corporate social responsibility. Management Decision, 46(9), 1437-1443. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00251740810912037.
  • Morales-Vallejo, P. (2011). Guía para construir cuestionarios y escalas de actitudes. Publicado en Guatemala: Universidad Rafael Landívar.
  • Morris, S., & Snell, S.A. (2011). Intellectual capital configurations and organizational capability: An empirical examination of human resource subunits in the multinational Enterprise. Journal of International Business Studies, 42(1), 805-827. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2011.14.
  • Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. The Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242-266.
  • Peloza, J., & Shang, J. (2011). How can corporate social responsibility activities create value for stakeholders? A systematic review. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(1), 117-135. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11747-010-0213-6.
  • Pérez-López, C. (2009). Tecnicas estadisticas multivariantes con SPSS. Madrid: Garceta grupo editorial.
  • Pfeffer, J. (1998). The Human Equation: Building Profits by Putting People First. Boston: Harvard Business Press.
  • Phillips, R., Freeman, R.E., & Wicks, A.C. (2003). What Stakeholder Theory is Not. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13(4), 479-502. http://dx.doi.org/10.5840/beq200313434.
  • Shauki, E. (2011). Perceptions on corporate social responsibility: A study in capturing public confidence. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 18(3), 200-208. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/csr.267.
  • Scherer, A.G., & Palazzo, G. (2011). The New Political Role of Business in a Globalized World: A Review of a New Perspective on CSR and its Implications for the Firm, Governance, and Democracy. Journal of Management Studies, 48(4), 899-931. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.00950.x.
  • Scott, W.R. (2007). Institutions and Organizations. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
  • Surroca, J., Tribó, J., & Waddock, S. (2010). Corporate responsibility and financial performance: The role of intangible resources. Strategic Management Journal, 31(5), 1-49. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/smj.820.
  • Svensson, G.R., & Wood, G. (2011). A conceptual framework of corporate and business ethics across organizations: Structures, processes and performance. The Learning Organization, 18(1), 21-35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09696471111095975.
  • Tzaffir, S. (2006). A universalistic perspective for explaining the relationship between HRM practices and firm performance at different points in time. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21, 109-130. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02683940610650730.
  • Urgal, B., Quintás, M.Á., & Arévalo-Tomé, R. (2011). Conocimiento tecnológico, capacidad de innovación y desempeño innovador: el rol moderador del ambiente interno de la empresa. Cuadernos de Economía y Dirección de la Empresa, 14, 53-66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cede.2011.01.004.
  • Walton, R.E., (1985). From control to commitment in the workplace. Harvard Business Review, March-April, 77-84.
  • Werther, W., & Chandler, D. (2010). Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility. Stakeholders in a Global Environment. Sage Publications.
  • Youndt, M.A., & Snell, S.A. (2004). Human Resource Configurations, Intellectual Capital, and Organizational Performance. Journal of Managerial Issues, 16(3), 337-360.
  • Zéghal, D., & Maaloul, A. (2010). Analysing value added as an indicator of intellectual capital and its consequences on company performance. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 11(1), 39-60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14691931011013325.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet