COSTOS VARIABLES

As noted above, signifi cant debate has developed in Ireland over the last 30 years in relation to whether foreign-owned MNCs adapted to the local HRM traditions. The earlier literature pointed towards foreign-owned MNCs conforming to the prevailing HRM traditions. The more recent literature, however, referred to the development of a ‘new orthodoxy’, whereby foreign-owned MNCs no longer conformed to the prevailing traditions, but rather intro- duced HRM policies and practices that were different to those existing in indigenous companies – pointing and referring to the growing dominance of ‘country of origin’ effects. The evidence pre- sented in this chapter has contributed to this debate by presenting fi ndings from a study which has comprehensively examined HRM policies and practices in foreign- and also Irish-owned MNCs. In so doing it provides a clear profi le of HRM within foreign- and Irish-owned MNCs via a carefully selected methodology which has sought to address traditional defi ciencies when examining MNCs’ activity in Ireland (McDonnell et al., 2007).

The fi ndings of this chapter provide support for the contention that foreign-owned MNCs do behave differently to Irish-owned MNCs (Roche and Geary, 1996; Geary and Roche, 2001; Gun- nigle et al., 2005; Collings et al., 2008; Lavelle, 2008). Indeed, quite a number of signifi cant differences between Irish, US and other foreign MNCs were found to exist across HR domains – out of the 40 HR measures explored, signifi cant differences occur in 22 of those measures. Where we fi nd differences between MNCs, it was by and large between US and Irish MNCs – pointing towards country of origin effects among US MNCs. Differences are particu- larly pronounced between Irish and US MNCs, and with respect to the practice areas of performance management and industrial rela- tions. This would fi nd support within more general research, which has found conservatism amongst Irish fi rms in the domains of per- formance management, in part due to institutional context (Roche and Turner, 1998). For example, US MNCs are more likely to have performance appraisals, use forced distribution in appraisals, offer high levels of direct communication and participation practices, and are less likely to recognise a trade union (Almond and Ferner, 2006).

Furthermore, our data point to strong evidence that there is no convergence of HRM practices among MNCs operating in Ireland.

In a recent review of US, German and Japanese MNCs, Pudelko and Harzing (2007) found evidence of a convergence of HRM prac- tices around US-style HRM. However, despite the predictions of a convergence towards US-style HRM practices or a global standard HRM style, we fi nd no evidence to support this contention (Brew- ster et al., 2008). Indeed, our fi ndings illustrate the utility of using home and host country effects to explain variation within MNCs and their HRM practices.

Finally, Geary and Roche (2001) predicted that there would likely be a spill-over effect from MNCs to Irish-owned companies, suggesting that host country practices would converge towards foreign MNCs’ practices. If this was to occur, we would most likely see this convergence occurring between Irish- and foreign-owned MNCs. Yet our results showed little evidence of this spill-over effect from foreign-owned MNCs to Irish-owned MNCs, with many distinct differences as to how HRM appears in their respec- tive organisations.

Conclusions

This chapter has examined the HRM practices that MNCs pursue in response to the internationalisation process (Scullion, 1995). In so doing it has highlighted the theoretical and methodological complexities of research in an area where HRM contributions have been surprisingly underrepresented (Morley et al., 2006). The fi nd- ings indicate clear distinctions between the HRM practices of Irish MNCs and those of US and foreign MNCs. However, it is important to avoid overly simplistic claims of either convergence or diver- gence, or host country versus country of origin effects. Arguably, there are a range and interplay of effects to be explored, so that infl uences may not be mutually exclusive – for example Belanger et al. (2013) point toward the need to account for a broader set of rela- tionships both inside and outside the operations of foreign MNCs. Likewise, there may be host country or country of origin patterns in the combinations of practices deployed as opposed to the inci- dence of individual practices (Ferner and Almond, 2013). From a practitioner standpoint, this chapter highlights the importance of being attentive to key infl uences and the broader cultural fi t of spe- cifi c HRM practices. It also suggests that best practice HRM may equate to universal principles, whereas the specifi cs of practice

will respect local contingencies. Ultimately, key insights are likely to come from longitudinal survey research which can examine key trends over time, complemented with in-depth case analysis to explore why and how key international infl uences take effect. Both lines of research are of importance as the power of MNCs, coupled with the reality of emerging markets, means this is an area of ongoing signifi cance.

References

Almond, P. and Ferner, A. (2006), American Multinationals in Europe: Man-

aging Employment Relations across National Borders, Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Baruch, Y. and Holtom, B.C. (2008), ‘Survey Response Rate Levels and Trends in Organizational Research’, Human Relations, 61(8): 1139–1160. Belanger, J., Lévesque, C., Jalette, P. and Murray, G. (2013), ‘Discretion

in Employment Relations Policy among Foreign-Controlled Multina- tionals in Canada’, Human Relations, 66(3): 307–332.

Brewster, C., Wood, G. and Brookes, M. (2008), ‘Similarity, Isomorphism or Duality? Recent Survey Evidence on the Human Resource Man- agement Policies of Multinational Corporations’, British Journal of

Management, 19(4): 320–343.

Butler, R.A. (2006), ‘Corporations Agree to Cut Carbon Emissions’, Mon-

gabay.com, 20 February, available from: <http://news.mongabay.

com/2007/0220-roundtable.html>.

Collings, D.G. (2008), ‘Multinational Corporations and Industrial Relations Research: A Road Less Travelled’, International Journal of Management

Reviews, 10(2): 173–193.

Collings, D.G., Gunnigle, P. and Morley, M.J. (2008), ‘Between Boston and Berlin: American MNCs and the Shifting Contours of Industrial Rela- tions in Ireland’, International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19(2): 242–263.

Collinson, S. and Rugman, A. (2010), ‘Case Selection Biases in Manage- ment Research: The Implications for International Business Studies’,

European Journal of International Management, 4(5): 441–463.

Dundon, T., Curran, D., Maloney, M. and Ryan, P. (2006), ‘Conceptual- ising the Dynamics of Employee Voice: Evidence from the Republic of Ireland’, Industrial Relations Journal, 37(5): 492–512.

Dundon, T., Wilkinson, A., Marchington, M. and Ackers, P. (2004), ‘The Meanings and Purposes of Employee Voice’, International Journal of

Edwards, T. and Ferner, A. (2002), ‘The Renewed “American Challenge”: A Review of Employment Practices in US Multinationals’, Industrial

Relations Journal, 33(2): 94–111.

Edwards, T. and Rees, C. (2006), ‘The Transfer of Human Resource Prac- tices in Multinational Companies’ in T. Edwards and C. Rees (eds),

International Human Resource Management: Globalization, National Systems and Multinational Companies, Harlow: Pearson Education,

66–88.

Edwards, T., Tregaskis, O., Edwards, P., Ferner, A. and Marginson, P. (2007), ‘Charting the Contours of Multinationals in Britain: Methodo- logical Challenges Arising in Survey-Based Research’, Warwick Papers

in Industrial Relations, 86(November): 1–32.

Enderwick, P. (1986), ‘Multinationals and Labour Relations: The Case of Ireland’, Journal of Irish Business and Administrative Research, 8(2): 1–11. Fenton-O’Creevy, M., Gooderham, P. and Nordhaug, O. (2008), ‘Human

Resource Management in US Subsidiaries in Europe and Australia: Centralization or Autonomy?’, Journal of International Business Studies, 39(1): 151–166.

Ferner, A. (1997), ‘Country of Origin Effects and HRM in Multinational Companies’, Human Resource Management, 7(1): 19–37.

Ferner, A. and Almond, P. (2013), ‘Performance and Reward Practices in Foreign Multinationals in the UK’, Human Resource Management

Journal, 23(3): 241–261.

Ferner, A. and Quintanilla, J. (1998), ‘Multinationals, National Business Systems and HRM: The Enduring Infl uence of National Identity or a Process of “Anglo-Saxonization”’, International Journal of Human

Resource Management, 9(4): 710–731.

Ferner, A. and Quintanilla, J. (2002), ‘Between Globalisation and Capitalist Variety: Multinationals and the International Diffusion of Employ- ment Relations’, European Journal of Industrial Relations, 8(3): 243–250. Geary, J. and Roche, W. (2001), ‘Multinationals and Human Resource

Practices in Ireland: A Rejection of the “New Conformance Thesis”’,

International Journal of Human Resource Management, 12(1): 109–127.

Gennard, J. and Steuer, M.D. (1971), ‘The Industrial Relations of Foreign Owned Subsidiaries in the United Kingdom’, British Journal of Indus-

trial Relations, 9(2): 143–159.

Gunnigle, P. (1995), ‘Collectivism and the Management of Industrial Rela- tions in Greenfi eld Sites’, Human Resource Management Journal, 5(3): 24–40.

Gunnigle, P., Collings, D.G. and Morley, M.J. (2005), ‘Exploring the Dynamics of Industrial Relations in US Multinationals: Evidence from the Republic of Ireland’, Industrial Relations Journal, 36(3): 241–256. Gunnigle, P., Flood, P., Morley, M.J. and Turner, T. (1994), Continuity and

Gunnigle, P., Morley, M.J., Clifford, N., Turner, T., Heraty, N. and Crowley, M. (1997), Human Resource Management in Irish Organisations:

Practice in Perspective, Dublin: Oak Tree Press.

Kelly, A. and Brannick, T. (1985), ‘Industrial Relations Practices in Multina- tional Companies in Ireland’, Journal of Irish Business and Administrative

Research, 7(1): 98–111.

Lavelle, J. (2008), ‘Charting the Contours of Union Recognition in Foreign- Owned MNCs: Survey Evidence from the Republic of Ireland’, Irish

Journal of Management, 29(1): 45–64.

Lavelle, J., McDonnell, A. and Gunnigle, P. (2009), Human Resource Prac-

tices in Multinational Companies in Ireland: A Contemporary Analysis,

Dublin: Labour Relations Commission.

McDonnell, A., Lavelle, J., Gunnigle, P. and Collings, D.G. (2007), ‘Man- agement Research on Multinational Corporations: A Methodological Critique’, Economic and Social Review, 38(2): 235–258.

Morley, M., Heraty, N. and Collings, D. (eds) (2006), International Human

Resource Management and International Assignments, London: Palgrave

Macmillan.

National Centre for Partnership and Performance (2004), The Changing

Workplace: A Survey of Employers’ Views and Experiences, Dublin: NCPP.

Pudelko, M. and Harzing, A.W. (2007), ‘Country-of-Origin, Localization, or Dominance Effect? An Empirical Investigation of HRM Practices in Foreign Subsidiaries’, Human Resource Management, 46(4): 535–559. Rees, C. and Edwards, T. (2011), ‘Globalization and Multinational Com-

panies’ in T. Edwards and C. Rees (eds), International Human Resource

Management: Globalization, National Systems and Multinational Compa- nies, second edition, Harlow: Pearson Education, 11–32.

Roche, W.K. and Geary, J. (1996), ‘Multinational Companies in Ireland: Adapting To or Diverging From National Industrial Relations Prac- tices and Traditions’, Irish Business and Administrative Review, 17(1): 14–31.

Roche, W.K. and Turner, T. (1998), ‘Human Resource Management and Industrial Relations: Substitution, Dualism and Partnership’ in W.K. Roche, K. Monks and J. Walsh (eds), Human Resource Strategies: Policy

and Practice in Ireland, Dublin: Oak Tree Press, 67–108.

Rosenzweig, P.M. and Nohria, N. (1994), ‘Infl uences on Human Resource Management Practices in Multinational Corporations’, Journal of Inter-

national Business Studies, 25(2): 229–242.

Scullion, H. (1995), ‘International Human Resource Management’ in J. Storey (ed.), Human Resource Management: A Critical Text, London: Routledge, 352–382.

Turner, T., D’Art, D. and Gunnigle, P. (1997a), ‘Pluralism in Retreat: A Comparison of Irish and Multinational Manufacturing Companies’,

Turner, T., D’Art, D. and Gunnigle, P. (1997b), ‘US Multinationals: Changing the Framework of Irish Industrial Relations?’, Industrial

Relations Journal, 28(2): 92–102.

United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) (2006), FDI from Developing and Transition Economies: Implications for

Development, New York, NY and Geneva: United Nations.

United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) (2007), World Investment Report 2007: Transnational Corporations, Extrac-

tive Industries and Development, New York, NY and Geneva: United

Nations.

United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) (2008), World Investment Report 2008: Transnational Corporations and the

Infrastructure Challenge, New York, NY and Geneva: United Nations.

United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) (2009), World Investment Report 2009: Transnational Corporations, Agri-

cultural Production and Development, New York, NY and Geneva:

United Nations.

Whitley, R. (1999), Divergent Capitalisms: The Social Structuring and Change