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

Journal:
Intangible Capital

ISSN: 1697-9818

Year of publication: 2016

Volume: 12

Issue: 2

Pages: 549-590

Type: Article

DOI: 10.3926/IC.738 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openOpen access editor

More publications in: Intangible Capital

Abstract

Purpose: This research focuses on the benefits that social responsibility can report on the area of human resources, examined the impact of a socially responsible configuration of human resource policies and practices in the generation value process for the company, and more specifically in its intellectual capital. Design/methodology/approach: The study performed a regression analysis, testing the individual effects of socially responsible human resource policies on intellectual capital, broken down into three main variables such as human, social and organizational capital. Findings: The results shed light on how the introduction of socially responsible aspects in the management of human resources can facilitate the exchange of knowledge, skills and attitudes human--capital; lead to improvements in communication, trust, cooperation among employees social-capital and, in turn, generates an institutionalized knowledge encoded in the own organizational culture –organizational capital–. Research limitations/implications: The study only provides information from large companies with over 250 employees. Practical implications: There are important implications in the measure of corporate social responsibility concerns in the area of human resources. Social implications: Also important intangible effects on non-economic variables are confirmed, such as intellectual capital. Originality/value: The value of the study lies in its novelty, testing socially responsible configurations of human resources as well as the direct effects of different policies on intellectual capital.

Bibliographic References

  • 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.
Data source: Dialnet