At the intersection of corporate social responsibility (CSR) and human resource management (HRM), a specific research strand has been forming and considerably flourishing over the past years, contributing to the burgeoning academic debate of what has been called “socially responsible human resource management” (SRHRM). The SRHRM debate seeks to proactively enhance employees’ work experiences and meet their personal and social expectations in ethical and socially responsible ways. Despite the increasing interest in research about SRHRM, however, the literature in this area is highly scattered, and a comprehensive study has yet to be undertaken. The present paper addresses this shortcoming by systematically reviewing 57 scholarly articles published in this research domain. It integrates previous insights on the topic to provide a far-reaching theoretical framework that highlights antecedents, practices, and outcomes of SRHRM research. As the results show, between 2011 and 2021, the Sustainability
journal has published most of the empirical papers in this area, while the last three years (2019–2021) experienced a significant surge of publications on the topic. Our framework shapes a holistic overview of the SRHRM domain and illuminates different relevant elements upon which future studies in this area could be developed. This contribution is also beneficial for general CSR literature as it stresses the importance of its internal stakeholders, which have been comprehensively given less attention so far. By critically examining the recent literature on SRHRM, we further show how previous research is dominated by studies rooted in utilitarian approaches. Therefore, we set a research agenda for future studies by acknowledging the need for process-oriented studies and the importance of critical scholarship within the field of SRHRM.
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited