You are here

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

Impact of socially responsible human resources policies on intellectual capital

Journal Name:

Publication Year:


Keywords (Original Language):

Abstract (2. Language): 
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: 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.
Abstract (Original Language): 
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/enfoque: 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. Originalidad / Valor añadido: El valor del estudio reside en su novedad, testando configuraciones de recursos humanos socialmente responsables, así como los efectos directos de las diferentes políticas en el capital intelectual. Palabras clave: Capital Intelectual, Gestión de Recursos Humanos, Políticas de Recursos Humanos Socialmente Responsables, Capital Humano, Capital Social, Capital Organizacional

JEL Codes:



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.
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.
Barney, J.B. (1991). Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1),
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.
Brewster, C. (1999). Strategic Human Resource Management: The Value of Different Paradigms.
Management International Review, 39(3), 45-64.
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. Carroll, A.B. (1999). Corporate social responsibility. Business & Society, 38(3), 268-295.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Dahlsrud, A. (2008). How corporate social responsibility is defined: An analysis of 37 definitions.
Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 15(1), 1-13.
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.
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.
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. 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.
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.
Freeman, R.E., & Liedtka, J. (1991). Corporate Social Responsibility: A Critical Approach. Business
Horizons, 34(4), 92-98.
Fuentes-Ganzo, E. (2006). La responsabilidad social corporativa. Su dimension normativa:
implicaciones para las empresas españolas. Pecvnia, 3, 1-20.
Galbreath, J. (2010). How does corporate social responsibility benefit firms? Evidence from Australia.
European Business Review, 22(4), 411-431.
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),
Global Reporting Iniatiative (GRI) (2002). Sustainability Reporting Guidelines. GRI, Boston, MA.
Global Reporting Iniatiative (GRI) (2006). Sustainability Reporting Guidelines. GRI, Amsterdam, The
Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) (2011). Sustainability Reporting Guidelines. Disponible online en:
Guest, D.E. (1997). Human resource management and performance: A review and research agenda.
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 8(3), 263-276.
Guthrie, J. (2001). High-Involvement work practices, turnover, and productivity: Evidence from New
Zealand. Academy of Management Journal, 44(1), 180-190.
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. 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. 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
Phillips, R., Freeman, R.E., & Wicks, A.C. (2003). What Stakeholder Theory is Not. Business Ethics
Quarterly, 13(4), 479-502.
Shauki, E. (2011). Perceptions on corporate social responsibility: A study in capturing public
confidence. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 18(3), 200-208.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.

Thank you for copying data from