International Framework Agreements (IFAs) represent a still small but growing and particularly interesting contribution to the global regulation of employment relations. IFAs enable global union federations (GUFs) to become actively involved in co-designing employment relations within transnational corporations (TNCs) and their global production networks. Based upon theoretical insights into the challenges of transferring practices in and across organizations, we present and discuss a model of practice transfer for global production networks based on empirical data from a content analysis of IFAs and from interviews with representatives of TNCs, GUFs, and other experts. Our study contributes to an organizational theory of practice transfer. But more importantly, it aims at a better integration of IHRM and international industrial relations by looking more closely at the particular role of GUFs as external actors.
Academic interest in Global Framework Agreements (GFAs) has grown considerably over the past several years, but the focus has largely been limited to comparing their various clauses and provisions. More recent research has centred on case studies of their implementation. In this article, we move beyond an exclusive analysis of GFAs to a broader conceptualization of steps towards globalizing labour relations, in which GFAs are fundamental. In our heuristic model, a GFA is the negotiated result of interest representation. A GFA creates an arena for the pursuit of global labour relations by defining the content, selecting the actors, delineating the processes and setting the boundaries of labour-management interaction. As a political space undergoing institutionalization, all of these dimensions of arenas are still contested. Although the structural boundaries are fuzzy at the periphery, such arenas reach beyond the organizational entities of the signatory transnational corporation (TNC) to encompass the global production network (GPN). Furthermore, we show how Global Union Federations (GUFs) and their member unions operating in regard to particular GPNs have begun building Transnational Union Networks (TUNs). Using two very different case studies, we argue that structural contingencies and strategic choices intertwine to bring about divergent TUN trajectories: one favouring a limited company-specific internal approach, the other a broader, GUF-led union-building approach. As exemplified by these findings, TUNs in our construction of an arena linking key elements of transnational labour relations are still 'work in progress'. Our concluding hypotheses reflect this contingency and the need for further research.
“Home‐country effects” on multinational companies’ practices abroad are assessed by comparing twelve German‐ and U.S.‐owned plants within the same sector in the “institutionally permissive” Poland, Hungary, and Slovenia. Differences are detected on functional flexibility, corporate culture and working time, but not on participation. Work organization seems more integral to national productive models than industrial relations. Moreover, considerable intramodel variation reflects product‐ and labor‐market contingencies. The results support the interpretation of national models as internally heterogeneous and dynamic.
Relocations within an enlarged Europe are often portrayed as an unavoidable destiny or irresistible threat for workers. The article outlines a number of contingent factors which determine how serious are the threats and how feasible is an effective union response. Such factors are then tested through in-depth case studies of 12 plants in the automotive components sector (where cross-border competition is particularly strong), showing how varied can be the scenarios for industrial relations in multinational companies.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.