El doble rol de la inversión en recursos humanos en la desigualdad social

Abstract

Este trabajo ha obtenido el Premio Estudios Financieros 2020 en la modalidad de Recursos Humanos. Una cuestión clave pendiente de resolución es reconocer cuál es el papel de la gestión de los recursos humanos (RR. HH.) en el logro de un desarrollo sostenible. El propósito de esta investigación es avanzar en este vínculo empresa-sociedad, centrando la atención en la repercusión de la inversión en RR. HH. sobre la desigualdad social. Basándose en la literatura sobre sostenibilidad, se propone que la inversión en RR. HH. y el equilibrio organizativo de las empresas reducen la desigualdad social. El equilibrio organizativo representa la equidad entre los intereses de personas empleadas y empresa, definiéndose en función del ajuste entre inversión en RR. HH. y productividad laboral. Por consiguiente, la inversión en RR. HH. presenta un doble papel al actuar como componente del equilibrio organizativo y como antecedente de la desigualdad social. A partir del análisis longitudinal de una amplia muestra de 2.051 empresas españolas durante un periodo de 5 años (2012-2016), los resultados corroboran que cuanto mayor sea el equilibrio organizativo, menor será la desigualdad social. Esta influencia se constata cuando se considera conjuntamente el efecto directo y el efecto indirecto, vía inversión en RR. HH., del equilibrio organizativo sobre la desigualdad social. Una relación de intercambio social equitativa entre personas empleadas y empresa caracteriza la sostenibilidad corporativa y mejora el desarrollo sostenible de la sociedad al limitar su nivel de desigualdad social.

The Symbiotic Bond of Income Equality and Organizational Equilibrium

“…Unfortunately, the serious COVID-19 pandemic currently affecting all countries will probably alter the ethical value of equity or distributive justice, both in organizations and in society [13,21,63]. Future research could usefully replicate our study and, adopting a comparative approach, analyze whether significant differences arise in the relationships proposed in our model between pre-and post-2020 periods.…”

“…This organizational equilibrium between inducement and contribution allows a company to be sustainable and survive over time [19,43]. According to Roca-Puig [21], an organization will be sustainable if it preserves a positive coalignment between its HR investment (i.e., inducement) and its labor productivity (i.e., contribution). Organizational equilibrium represents equity between the interests of employees and employers, defined by the fit between HR investment and labor productivity.…”

“…Value added assessed employees' labor efficiency by considering economic output in relation to operating costs. Drawing on Venkatraman [52] and Roca-Puig [21], the use of SEM allows us to operationalize organizational equilibrium as a latent variable that denotes the positive coalignment between labor productivity and HR investment. In addition, Roca-Puig et al [31] have identified organizational size and capital intensity as variables that can affect both HR investment and labor productivity and, therefore, could affect the organization's coalignment (i.e., organizational equilibrium).…”

“…The corporate sustainability approach (e.g., [16][17][18]) embraces the seminal inducement-contribution model [19], in which the organizational equilibrium concept expresses an employment relationship focused on equity, obtained from the balance between the interests of two basic internal stakeholders: the employer and the employees [20]. More specifically, Roca-Puig [21] defines organizational equilibrium as the coalignment between human resource (HR) investment (i.e., inducement) and the return of this investment through labor productivity (i.e., contribution) in a company. Stakeholder theory [22] recognizes that for an organization to be sustainable there must be a significant coalignment in meeting the expectations of both stakeholders [23,24], emphasizing relationships that are mutually beneficial for employers and employees [25].…”