Psychology, Interamerican
Diferencias del comportamiento socialmente responsable entre empresas que aplican y no aplican RSE
PDF (Español (España))


comportamiento socialmente responsable
responsabilidad social empresarial

How to Cite

Ramos, V., Avalos, A. C., Vinueza Aguirre, L. P., & Tejera, E. (2018). Diferencias del comportamiento socialmente responsable entre empresas que aplican y no aplican RSE. Revista Interamericana De Psicología/Interamerican Journal of Psychology, 52(1).


El presente estudio tiene por objetivo identificar las diferencias entre organizaciones que aplican y no aplican acciones asociadas a prácticas de responsabilidad social empresarial (RSE), teniendo en cuenta  la percepción de sus trabajadores en cuanto a su comportamiento socialmente responsable (CSR). Para ello, realizamos una medición de cinco factores asociados al CSR: autonomía, empatía, competencias, justicia y ética (n total = 699). La metodología utilizada fue cuantitativa,  transversal y correlacional. Para los cálculos se utilizaron el coeficiente de correlación de Pearson (p<.05) y ANOVA de un factor. Los resultados indicaron que las Competencias fue el elemento del CSR menos frecuente en la organización donde se aplican acciones de RSE (x= 4,79). En el caso de la organización donde no se aplican acciones de RSE, los elementos del CSR con menor ponderación fueron Ética (x= 4,12)  y Empatía (x= 4,12). Los cinco aspectos del CSR presentaron diferencias estadísticamente significativas entre ambas organizaciones, siendo superior en la organización que aplica acciones de RSE. Este estudio resulta relevante pues demuestra la existencia de comportamientos diferenciados  en aquellas entidades que proyectan sus acciones de RSE, sirviendo también como herramienta independiente para evaluar CSR a lo interno de las organizaciones.
PDF (Español (España))


Arnaud, S., & Wasieleski, D. (2014). Corporate humanistic responsibility: Social Performance through managerial discretion of the HRM. Journal of Business Ethics, 120(3), 313–334. doi: 10.1007/s10551-013-1652-z

Besiou, M., & Van Wassenhove, L. N. (2015). Addressing the challenge of modeling for decision-making in socially responsible operations. Production & Operations Management, 24(9), 1390–1401. doi: 10.1111/poms.12375

Black, L. D., & Härtel, C. E. J. (2004). The five capabilities of socially responsible companies. Journal of Public Affairs (14723891), 4(2), 125–144. doi: 10.1002/pa.176

Cacioppe, R., Forster, N., & Fox, M. (2008). A survey of managers’ perceptions of corporate ethics and social responsibility and actions that may affect companies’ success. Journal of Business Ethics, 82(3), 681–700. doi: 10.1007/s10551-007-9586-y

Crilly, D., Schneider, S. S. C., & Zollo, M. (2008). Psychological antecedents to socially responsible behavior. European Management Review, 5(3), 175–190. doi: 10.1057/emr.2008.15

Hasford, J., & Farmer, A. (2016). Responsible you, despicable me: Contrasting competitor inferences from socially responsible behavior. Journal of Business Research, 69(3), 1234–1241. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.09.009

Haski-Leventhal, D., Roza, L., & Meijs, L. C. P. M. (2015). Congruence in corporate social responsibility: Connecting the identity and behavior of employers and employees. Journal of Business Ethics, September, 1–17. doi: 10.1007/s10551-015-2793-z

IBM. (2011). Ibm spss statistic (Version 20). New York: IBM.

Idrobo, D., Viteri, O., & Ramos, V. (2015). El comportamiento socialmente responsable, como forma de manifestación de la responsabilidad social corporativa en el ecuador. Revista Sector-E, 3(Primer Semestre).

Jelovac, D., Wal, Z., & Jelovac, A. (2011). Business and Government Ethics in the “New” and “Old” EU: An Empirical Account of Public-Private Value Congruence in Slovenia and the Netherlands. (RPRT). Journal of Business Ethics (Vol. 103). Springer Science & Business Media B.V. doi: 10.1007/s10551-011-0846-5

Kunz, J., & Linder, S. (2012). Organizational control and work effort – Another look at the interplay of rewards and motivation. European Accounting Review, 21(3), 1–31. doi: 10.1080/09638180.2012.684498

Lakshman, C., Ramaswami, A., Alas, R., Kabongo, J., & Rajendran Pandian, J. (2014). Ethics trumps culture? A cross-national study of business leader responsibility for downsizing and CSR perceptions. Journal of Business Ethics, 125(1), 101–119. doi: 10.1007/s10551-013-1907-8

Lambertini, L., & Tampieri, A. (2015). Incentives, performance and desirability of socially responsible firms in a Cournot oligopoly. Economic Modelling, 50(1), 40–48.

Larrán-Jorge, M., Martínez-Martínez, D., de los Reyes, M. J. M., & Martínez-, D. (2013). ¿Qué habría de incluir una memoria completa de sostenibilidad? Universia Business Review, (39), 66–103.

Maç, S. D., & Çalış, Ţ. (2012). Social Responsibility within the ethics and human resource management debates: A review of global compact and sa8000 social responsibility standard. Turkish Journal of Business Ethics, 5(10), 41–53.

Melorose, J., Perroy, R., & Careas, S. (2015). Corporate Social Responsability. (P. Watts, S. International, Lord Holme, & R. Tinto, Eds.), Statewide Agricultural Land Use Baseline 2015 (Vol. 1). Conches-Geneva: World Business Council for Sustainable Development. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004

Moneva, J. M. (2005). Información sobre responsabilidad social corporativa: Situación y tendencias. RAE: Revista Asturiana de Economía, (34), 43–67.

Moretti, D., & Linhares, G. (2014). Amartya Sen e John Rawls : Um diálogo entre a abordagem das capacidades e e a justiça como equidade. Theoria -Revista Eletrônica de Filosofia, VI(15), 153–161.

Moss, S. A., & Wilson, S. G. (2014). Why are the attempts of organisations to enhance the wellbeing of individuals often likely to fail: The curse of conflicting needs. Australasian Journal of Organisational Psychology, 7, N.PAG-00. JOUR. doi: 10.1017/orp.2014.6

Oostlander, J., Güntert, S., & Wehner, T. (2014). Linking autonomy-supportive leadership to volunteer satisfaction: A self-determination theory perspective. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary & Nonprofit Organizations, 25(6), 1368–1387. doi: 10.1007/s11266-013-9395-0

Praulins, A., Prauliņš, A., & Bratka, V. (2014). Ethical and socially responsible behaviour of tax advisers: The case of moral beliefs. Socialiniai Tyrimai, 2014(3), 153–163.

Rupp, D. E., Williams, C. A., & Aguilera, R. V. (2006). Increasing corporate social responsibility through stakeholder value internalization (and the catalyzing effect of new governance): An Application of organizational justice, self-determination, and social influence theories. Managerial Ethics: Managing the Psychology of Morality, 69–88. doi: 10.5860/CHOICE.48-3371

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). La teoría de la autodeterminación y la facilitación de la motivación intrínseca , el desarrollo social , y el bienestar teoría de la autodeterminación. American Psychologist, 55(1), 1–16. doi: 10.1037110003 - 066X.55.1.68

Schauster, E. (2015). The relationship between organizational leaders and advertising ethics: An organizational ethnography. Journal of Media Ethics, 30(3), 150–167. doi: 10.1080/23736992.2015.1050556

Schneider, S. C., Zollo, M., & Manocha, R. (2010). Developing socially responsible behaviour in managers. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, (39), 21–40.

Schneider, S., Oppegaard, K., Zollo, M., & Huy, Q. N. (2005). Socially responsible behaviour: Developing virtue in organizations. Faculty & Research, 40, 2–54.

Schreurs, B., Guenter, H., Schumacher, D., Van Emmerik, I. J. H., & Notelaers, G. (2013). Pay-level satisfaction and employee outcomes: The moderating effect of employee-involvement climate. Human Resource Management, 52(3), 399–421. doi: 10.1002/hrm.21533

Vveinhardt, J., & Zygmantaite, R. (2015). Influence of CSR policies in preventing dysfunctional behaviour in organizations. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 205(May), 340–348. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.09.095

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

  1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication, with the work [SPECIFY PERIOD OF TIME] after publication simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
  2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
  3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).