Final Report Summary - INTREPID (Employment relations in multinational companies: cross national comparative analysis)
The overall aim of this INTREPID Marie Curie IRSES programme was to develop a community of international scholars involved in closely linked studies on management practice in Multinational companies (MNC)s in different national contexts. The underpinning rationale for this work stems from the fact that despite the importance of MNCs in the global economy there is a paucity of representative and comprehensive studies of how MNCs organise and manage their employees in different contexts, and how the growing power of MNCs is impacting other social actors (e.g. trade union movement, national and local government). Thus our specific objective was to ensure an accurate, representative depiction of the activities of MNCs, especially as it relates to work and employment practices. Our consortium comprised scholars from 4 European Union (EU), 1 associated and three third countries involving some 17 universities and business schools. Our INTREPID work programme focused on four specific research themes that are intertwined under the area of MNCs, globalisation and employment practices, and which together address issues of great socio-economic significance.
1) Global value chains and MNCs: First the area of GVCs and MNCs was explored. In our parallel surveys of employment practices in MNCs we investigated why subsidiaries in some countries garner more pivotal roles than others within organisational GVCs. We also investigated what activities were kept in-house and what were outsourced. This work has involved all partners to some degree, though dissemination though the presentation of conference papers and completion of publications has been led by our Mexican and (to a lesser degree) Australian colleagues. An important outlet for our research on this theme was the International CRIMT conference 'MNCs, GVCs and social regulation', (HEC Montreal / University of Montreal, June 2011) where several INTREPID papers were presented. Papers on this theme were also delivered at other fora (e.g. XIX and XX International Gerpisa Colloquia, Paris, 2011 & Krakow, 2012 and at the 25th Association of Industrial Relations Academics of Australia and New Zealand (AIRAANZ), Conference (Auckland, 2011). This theme is further addressed in a number of papers in the forthcoming Special Issues of Industrial and Labour Relations Review (Issue 66, 2013).
2) Comparative employment practices in MNCs: While we are aware that MNCs have the potential to be a major source of innovation in employment practice, there is a lack of knowledge on the extent and nature of such innovation. Our parallel surveys provide a benchmark study of employment practice in MNCs across the different national contexts and their capacity to transfer practices between their foreign subsidiaries. This has allowed for the testing of a number of hypotheses, e.g. the extent to which MNCs operating in deregulated Employment relations (ER) systems (such as Ireland or the United Kingdom) have greater latitude to introduce innovative practices than in more tightly regulated systems (such as Canada or Spain). As evident in our list of published work, research papers based on INTPREDID data has now been published in many of the leading journals in the fields ERs and human resource management, such as the International Journal of Human Resource Management, European Journal of Industrial Relations, Human Resource Management Journal and Industrial and Labour Relations Review (forthcoming).
3) Convergence versus divergence: The extant literature is divided on the extent to which globalisation acts as a standardising force leading to greater convergence in employment practice or, alternatively, whether institutional and related differences between countries mean that divergent patterns of employment practice while pertain across nation states. This led our research teams to address a number of important questions through their empirical research, such as the degree to which differences in employment practices in MNCs operating in differing countries are increasing or decreasing, and to what degree is a homogenous global model of employment practices in MNC emerging. Given the comparative nature of our research paradigm, we were also able to investigate whether policies of market de-regulation and state de-control are European firms towards a distinctly US approach to employment practice. Finally, our work also informs the debate on whether there is an economic dominance effect at work and the extent to which employment practices characteristic of larger, economically successful nations are diffused to smaller, later industrialising nations. As again evident in our list of publications and dissemination activities, this work has been widely diffused through both conventional academic outlets (especially highly ranked peer reviewed journals and conferences) and practitioner-oriented symposia, seminars are workshops.
4) The need to rethink collective representation: Traditional models and analyses of workplace representation are predicated on the assumption that it is in employees best interests to organise through trade unions, or other collective forms. However, we find increasing evidence which indicates that MNCs, especially US MNCs, are union averse, while - more generally - levels of trade union density continue to decline across the developed world. This stimulated a number of our scholars to review the role trade unions in today's more globalised world and to consider what steps trade unions are taking to counteract their apparent demise. The outcomes of this work are manifest in comparative studies of the emergence of new representative forms (e.g. works councils and non-union forms of employee representation). Work on this domain has largely been disseminated through outlets focused on industrial / labour relations, (e.g. national and regional conferences of the International Labour and ERs Association (ILERA)); national IR / ER fora (e.g. Labour Relations Commission) and academic IR / ER peer reviewed journals (e.g. British Journal of Industrial Relations, Industrial Relations Journal, European Journal of Industrial Relations; Journal of Industrial Relations and Industrial and Labour Relations Review (forthcoming)).
In summary this international researcher exchange programme provided a critical means of driving this research programme forward through facilitating more nuanced comparative insights that can only be gained through on-the-ground interactions between scholars from different countries and their involvement in empirical investigations outside of their own national context. The project built on embryonic synergies between scholars in partner countries to provide rich empirical data that can be used to both construct theoretical frameworks and inform policy. Completed exchanges included both established scholars and newer / younger researchers in the initial stages of their scholarly careers. Solid ongoing research collaborations have been established which will continue long beyond the duration of the Mare-Curie IRSES project, a fact evidenced through both the addition of new partners (Argentina and Belgium) and the strong pipeline of refereed journal publications and conference presentations. The only major disappointing feature or our INTREPID (Marie-Curie IRSES) project was the fact that a considerable proportion of the exchange visits envisaged in our project proposal were either re-scheduled or cancelled. This is addressed elsewhere in this report and was primarily due to changes in the work roles or personal circumstances of scholars. Thus postponement or cancellation of visits largely stemmed from scholars changing jobs or job roles (e.g. due to promotions and/or re-location) or as a result of personal/family issues (e.g. health and family issues). While these changes only marginally impacted on the successful achievement of the primary goals of this exchange programme, it did mean that the achievement of some elements of the work packages were somewhat delayed (e.g. completion of integrated datafile), while the number of collaborative international journal publications was somewhat lower than we anticipated, though - as indicated above - the pipeline is quite strong.
Finally, the outputs from this research will clearly be of interest to personnel involved with foreign direct investment / MNCs including policy makers, government officials (both national and regional), employer associations, trade unions and management practitioners and workplace representatives.
1) Global value chains and MNCs: First the area of GVCs and MNCs was explored. In our parallel surveys of employment practices in MNCs we investigated why subsidiaries in some countries garner more pivotal roles than others within organisational GVCs. We also investigated what activities were kept in-house and what were outsourced. This work has involved all partners to some degree, though dissemination though the presentation of conference papers and completion of publications has been led by our Mexican and (to a lesser degree) Australian colleagues. An important outlet for our research on this theme was the International CRIMT conference 'MNCs, GVCs and social regulation', (HEC Montreal / University of Montreal, June 2011) where several INTREPID papers were presented. Papers on this theme were also delivered at other fora (e.g. XIX and XX International Gerpisa Colloquia, Paris, 2011 & Krakow, 2012 and at the 25th Association of Industrial Relations Academics of Australia and New Zealand (AIRAANZ), Conference (Auckland, 2011). This theme is further addressed in a number of papers in the forthcoming Special Issues of Industrial and Labour Relations Review (Issue 66, 2013).
2) Comparative employment practices in MNCs: While we are aware that MNCs have the potential to be a major source of innovation in employment practice, there is a lack of knowledge on the extent and nature of such innovation. Our parallel surveys provide a benchmark study of employment practice in MNCs across the different national contexts and their capacity to transfer practices between their foreign subsidiaries. This has allowed for the testing of a number of hypotheses, e.g. the extent to which MNCs operating in deregulated Employment relations (ER) systems (such as Ireland or the United Kingdom) have greater latitude to introduce innovative practices than in more tightly regulated systems (such as Canada or Spain). As evident in our list of published work, research papers based on INTPREDID data has now been published in many of the leading journals in the fields ERs and human resource management, such as the International Journal of Human Resource Management, European Journal of Industrial Relations, Human Resource Management Journal and Industrial and Labour Relations Review (forthcoming).
3) Convergence versus divergence: The extant literature is divided on the extent to which globalisation acts as a standardising force leading to greater convergence in employment practice or, alternatively, whether institutional and related differences between countries mean that divergent patterns of employment practice while pertain across nation states. This led our research teams to address a number of important questions through their empirical research, such as the degree to which differences in employment practices in MNCs operating in differing countries are increasing or decreasing, and to what degree is a homogenous global model of employment practices in MNC emerging. Given the comparative nature of our research paradigm, we were also able to investigate whether policies of market de-regulation and state de-control are European firms towards a distinctly US approach to employment practice. Finally, our work also informs the debate on whether there is an economic dominance effect at work and the extent to which employment practices characteristic of larger, economically successful nations are diffused to smaller, later industrialising nations. As again evident in our list of publications and dissemination activities, this work has been widely diffused through both conventional academic outlets (especially highly ranked peer reviewed journals and conferences) and practitioner-oriented symposia, seminars are workshops.
4) The need to rethink collective representation: Traditional models and analyses of workplace representation are predicated on the assumption that it is in employees best interests to organise through trade unions, or other collective forms. However, we find increasing evidence which indicates that MNCs, especially US MNCs, are union averse, while - more generally - levels of trade union density continue to decline across the developed world. This stimulated a number of our scholars to review the role trade unions in today's more globalised world and to consider what steps trade unions are taking to counteract their apparent demise. The outcomes of this work are manifest in comparative studies of the emergence of new representative forms (e.g. works councils and non-union forms of employee representation). Work on this domain has largely been disseminated through outlets focused on industrial / labour relations, (e.g. national and regional conferences of the International Labour and ERs Association (ILERA)); national IR / ER fora (e.g. Labour Relations Commission) and academic IR / ER peer reviewed journals (e.g. British Journal of Industrial Relations, Industrial Relations Journal, European Journal of Industrial Relations; Journal of Industrial Relations and Industrial and Labour Relations Review (forthcoming)).
In summary this international researcher exchange programme provided a critical means of driving this research programme forward through facilitating more nuanced comparative insights that can only be gained through on-the-ground interactions between scholars from different countries and their involvement in empirical investigations outside of their own national context. The project built on embryonic synergies between scholars in partner countries to provide rich empirical data that can be used to both construct theoretical frameworks and inform policy. Completed exchanges included both established scholars and newer / younger researchers in the initial stages of their scholarly careers. Solid ongoing research collaborations have been established which will continue long beyond the duration of the Mare-Curie IRSES project, a fact evidenced through both the addition of new partners (Argentina and Belgium) and the strong pipeline of refereed journal publications and conference presentations. The only major disappointing feature or our INTREPID (Marie-Curie IRSES) project was the fact that a considerable proportion of the exchange visits envisaged in our project proposal were either re-scheduled or cancelled. This is addressed elsewhere in this report and was primarily due to changes in the work roles or personal circumstances of scholars. Thus postponement or cancellation of visits largely stemmed from scholars changing jobs or job roles (e.g. due to promotions and/or re-location) or as a result of personal/family issues (e.g. health and family issues). While these changes only marginally impacted on the successful achievement of the primary goals of this exchange programme, it did mean that the achievement of some elements of the work packages were somewhat delayed (e.g. completion of integrated datafile), while the number of collaborative international journal publications was somewhat lower than we anticipated, though - as indicated above - the pipeline is quite strong.
Finally, the outputs from this research will clearly be of interest to personnel involved with foreign direct investment / MNCs including policy makers, government officials (both national and regional), employer associations, trade unions and management practitioners and workplace representatives.