Advertisement

Journal of International Business Studies

, Volume 47, Issue 8, pp 968–996 | Cite as

Miners, politics and institutional caryatids: Accounting for the transfer of HRM practices in the Brazilian multinational enterprise

  • John GearyEmail author
  • Roberta Aguzzoli
Article

Abstract

This article contributes to the growing stream of research on power and micro-politics in the MNE. It is situated in the critical realist epistemology. It adopts Burawoy’s extended case study method together with a context-sensitive and an actor-centered mode of explanation. The case is intriguing: a MNE from Brazil expands into Canada, the United Kingdom, Switzerland and Norway and imposes a new pay and performance management system, contrasting with existing host norms. The article uses this to examine interrelated questions about the influence of an emerging-economy parent business system and how this interacts with the well-developed institutional regulation of the host countries. Hence we are forced into the interesting realm of multilevel analysis about MNEs, power relations and institutional change. We argue that the transfer of HRM practices within MNEs is best explained by a consideration of institutions, organizational structures, actors’ postures within and beyond the MNE, and their relational interplay. Specifically, it requires an analysis of the macro-political context (home and host institutional influences; subsidiaries’ size, mode of establishment, history, value chain location; and the host economies’ dependence on foreign investment) on which actors’ identities and interests are formed, and on which the ensuing micro-political relations are played out.

Keywords

institutional theory emerging market multinationals international human resource management power and dependence critical realism multilevel analysis 

Abstract

Cet article contribue au flux croissant de recherches sur le pouvoir et la micro-politique au sein des entreprises multinationales (EMN). Il s’inscrit dans l'épistémologie réaliste critique. Il adopte la méthode d’étude de cas étendue de Burawoy associée à un mode d’explication sensible au contexte et axé sur l'acteur. Le cas est singulier : une EMN du Brésil se développe au Canada, au Royaume-Uni, en Suisse et en Norvège et impose un nouveau système de gestion des salaires et de la performance, contrastant avec les normes existantes des pays d'accueil. L'article utilise ce cas pour examiner des questions interdépendantes sur l'influence du système managérial d’un parent issu d’une économie émergente et sur comment cela interagit avec la régulation institutionnelle bien développée des pays d’accueil. Ainsi, nous sommes contraints d’utiliser le cadre intéressant de l'analyse multiniveaux des entreprises multinationales, des relations de pouvoir et du changement institutionnel. Nous argumentons que le transfert des pratiques de GRH au sein des entreprises multinationales s'explique mieux par un examen des institutions, des structures organisationnelles, des postures des acteurs au sein et au-delà de l'EMN et de leurs interactions relationnelles. Plus précisément, il nécessite une analyse du contexte macro-politique (influences institutionnelles du pays d’origine et du pays d’accueil ; taille des filiales, mode de création, histoire, localisation de la chaîne de valeur; et la dépendance du pays d'accueil aux investissements étrangers) sur lequel les identités et les intérêts des acteurs sont formés et sur lequel les relations micro-politiques qui en découlent se jouent.

Abstract

Este artículo contribuye a la creciente corriente de investigación en poder y micro-política en las empresas multinacionales. Está situado en el realismo crítico epistemológico. Adopta el método de caso estudio extendido de Burawoy junto con un modo de explicación sensible al contexto y centrada en actores. El caso es intrigante: Una multinacional de Brasil se expande a Canadá, Estados Unidos, Reino Unido, Suiza y Noruega e impone un sistema gerencial de pagos y rendimiento, lo cual contrasta con las normas existentes en los países anfitriones. Este artículo usa esto para examinar cuestiones interrelacionadas acerca de la influencia de un sistema empresarial de una casa matriz de una economía emergente y como esto interactúa con la regulación institucional bien desarrollada de los países anfitriones. Por lo tanto nos vemos forzados a un interesante campo de análisis de multinivel de las empresas multinacionales, las relaciones de poder y el cambio institucional. Argumentamos que transferir las prácticas de gestión de recursos humanos en las multinacionales se explica mejor por una consideración de instituciones, estructuras organizaciones, posturas de actores dentro y más allá de la multinacional, y su interacción relacional. Específicamente, se requiere un análisis del contexto macro-político (influencias institucionales país de origen y país anfitrión, tamaño de las subsidiarias, modo de establecimiento, historia, ubicación de la cadena de valor; y la dependencia del país anfitrión de inversión extranjera) en el cual las identidades de los actores y sus intereses son formados, y en el cual las relaciones micro-políticas resultantes se desarrollan.

Abstract

Este artigo contribui para a crescente área de pesquisa sobre poder e micro-política nas MNE. Ele está situado na epistemologia realista crítica. Ele adota o método de estudo de caso extendido de Burawoy juntamente com uma forma de explanação sensível ao contexto e centrada nos atores. O caso é intrigante: uma MNE do Brasil expande para o Canadá, Reino Unido, Suíça e Noruega e impõe um novo sistema de gestão de remuneração e desempenho contrastando com as normas existentes. O artigo usa isso para examinar questões inter-relacionadas a respeito da influência de um sistema de uma empresa controladora originária de uma economia emergente e como este interage com a bem desenvolvida regulação institucional dos países de destino. Por isso, somos levados para o interessante reino da análise multinível sobre MNE, relações de poder e mudança institucional. Argumentamos que a transferência de práticas de HRM nas MNEs é melhor explicada pela consideração de instituições, estruturas organizacionais, posturas de atores dentro e fora das MNE, e sua interação relacional. Especificamente, é requerida uma análise do contexto macro-político (influências institucionais da origem e do destino; tamanho da subsidiária, forma de estabelecimento, história, localização da cadeia de valor, e dependência do investimento externo por parte das economias de origem) em que as identidades e interesses dos atores são formados, e em que as consequentes relações micro-políticas são desenvolvidas.

Abstract

本文对跨国企业权力和微观政治研究潮流做出了贡献。它基于批判现实主义的认识论。它采用了布洛维的扩展案例研究法与情境敏感和以参与者为中心的解释模式的结合。此案例耐人寻味 : 一家巴西的跨国企业扩展到加拿大、英国、瑞士和挪威, 并实行了新的薪酬和绩效管理系统, 与东道国现有的规范形成鲜明对比。本文使用它来研究新兴经济母业务系统的影响以及它如何与东道国发达的制度规定互动的相互关联的问题。因此, 我们被迫进入了跨国企业权力关系和制度变迁多层次分析的有趣领域。我们认为, 跨国企业内的人力资源管理实践的转移可以用制度、组织结构, 跨国企业内外部参与者的姿态, 以及它们之间关系的相互作用来做出最好的解读。具体来说, 它需要有一个宏观政治情境的分析 (母国和东道国制度的影响; 子公司的规模, 创建模式, 历史, 价值链位置;东道国经济体对外资的依赖) , 其中参与者的身份和利益得以形成, 持久的微观政治关系得以发挥出来。

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the journal’s area editor, Ulf Andersson, and the three anonymous reviewers for their detailed and helpful comments on successive drafts of our article. The financial support provided by the UCD Ad Astra Fellowship is gratefully acknowledged.

References

  1. Almond, P. 2011. The sub-national embeddedness of international HRM. Human Relations, 64(4): 531–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Almond, P., Edwards, T., Colling, T., Ferner, A., Gunnigle, P., Muller-Camen, M., Quintanilla, J., & Wächter, H. 2005. Unraveling home and host-country effects: An investigation of the HRM policies of an American multinational in four European countries. Industrial Relations, 44(2): 276–306.Google Scholar
  3. Almond, P., & Ferner, A. 2006. American multinationals in Europe: Managing employment relations across national borders. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barros, R., Cruz, L., Foguel, M., & Mendonça, R. 1997. Uma avaliação empírica do grau de flexibilidade alocativa do mercado de trabalho brasileiro, www.ipea.gov.br/ppp/index.php/PPP/article/viewFile/124/126, accessed 12 May 2011.
  5. Bélanger, J., & Edwards, P. 2006. Towards a political economy framework: TNCs as national and global players. In A. Ferner, J. Quintanilla, & C. Sánchez-Runde (Eds), Multinationals, institutions and the construction of transnational practices: 24–52. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bhaskar, R. 1978. A realist theory of science. Hassocks: Harvester Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bhaskar, R. 2014. Foreword. In P. Edwards, J. O’Mahoney, & S. Vincent (Eds), Studying organizations using critical realism: v–xv. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Blazejewski, S., & Becker-Ritterspach, F. 2001. Conflict in headquarters – Subsidiary relations: A critical literature review and new directions. In C. Dörrenbächer, & M. Geppert (Eds), Politics and power in the multinational corporation: 139–190. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Borini, F., Fleury, M., Fleury, A., & Oliveira Jr., M. 2009. The relevance of subsidiaries initiatives for Brazilian multinationals. Revista de Administração de Empresas, 49(3): 253–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Börsch, A. 2008. Institutional variation and coordination patterns in CMEs: Swiss and German corporate governance in comparison. In B. Hancké, M. Rhodes, & M. Thatcher (Eds), Beyond varieties of capitalism: 173–194. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Bouquet, C., & Birkinshaw, J. 2008a. Weight versus voice: How foreign subsidiaries gain the attention of headquarters. Academy of Management Journal, 51(3): 577–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bouquet, C., & Birkinshaw, J. 2008b. Managing power in the multinational corporation: How low-power actors gain influence. Journal of Management, 34(3): 477–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Burawoy, M. 1985. The politics of production: Factory regimes under capitalism and socialism. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  14. Burawoy, M. 1998. The extended case method. Sociological Theory, 16(1): 4–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Burawoy, M. 2013. Ethnographic fallacies: Reflections on labour studies in the era of market fundamentalism. Work, Employment and Society, 27(3): 526–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cantwell, J., Dunning, J., & Lundan, S. 2010. An evolutionary approach to understanding international business activity: The co-evolution of MNEs and the institutional environment. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(4): 567–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cantwell, J., & Mudambi, R. 2005. MNE competence-creating subsidiary mandates. Strategic Management Journal, 26(12): 1109–1128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cardoso, A., & Gindin, J. 2009. Industrial relations and collective bargaining: Argentina, Brazil and Mexico compared, www.ilo.org/public/english/dialogue/ifpdial/downloads/papers/wp5.pdf, accessed 12 May 2011.
  19. Carvalho Neto, A. 2003. A reforma da estrutura sindical brasileira: Pressupostos para uma reforma trabalhista. VIII encontro nacional de estudos do trabalho, 14–16 October, São Paulo.Google Scholar
  20. Casanova, L., & Kassum, J. 2013. Brazilian emerging multinationals: In search of a second wind. Working Paper, INSEAD, Paris.Google Scholar
  21. Caseiro, L., & Masiero, G. 2014. OFDI promotion policies in emerging economies: The Brazilian and Chinese strategies. Critical Perspectives on International Business, 10(4): 237–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Chidlow, A., Plakoyiannaki, E., & Welch, C. 2014. Translation in cross-language international business research: Beyond equivalence. Journal of International Business Studies, 45(5): 562–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Chu, R., & Wood, T. 2008. Cultura organizacional Brasileira pós-globalização: Global ou local? Revista de Administração Pública, 42(5): 969–991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Clegg, S., Courpasson, D., & Phillips, N. 2006. Power and organizations. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  25. Coutinho, L., Hiratuka, C., & Sabatini, R. 2008. O investimento direto no exterior como alavanca dinamizadora da economia Brasileira. In O. Barros, & F. Giambiagi (Eds), Brasil globalizado: O Brasil em um mundo surpreendente, 3rd edn 63–88. São Paulo: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  26. DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. 1983. The Iron Cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2): 147–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Diniz, E. 1997. Crise, reforma do estado e governabilidade. Rio de Janeiro: FGV.Google Scholar
  28. Dunning, J. 2000. The eclectic paradigm as an envelope for economic and business theories of MNE activity. International Business Review, 9(2): 163–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Dunning, J., & Lundan, S. 2008. Multinational enterprises and the global economy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2nd edn.Google Scholar
  30. Dutton, J., Ashford, S., O’Neill, R., & Lawrence, K. 2001. Moves that matter: Issue selling and organizational change. Academy of Management Journal, 44(4): 716–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Dörrenbächer, C. 2000. Between global market constraints and national dependencies: The internationalization of the world’s leading telecommunications equipment suppliers. Transnational Corporations, 9(3): 1–32.Google Scholar
  32. Dörrenbächer, C., & Gammelgaard, J. 2011. Subsidiary power in the multinational corporation: On the subtle role of micro-political bargaining power. Critical Perspectives on International Business, 7(1): 30–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Dörrenbächer, C., & Geppert, M. 2009. A micro-political perspective on subsidiary initiative-taking: Evidence from German-owned subsidiaries in France. European Management Journal, 27(2): 100–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Dörrenbächer, C., & Geppert, M. 2011. Politics and power in the multinational corporation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Dølvik, J. 2007. The Nordic regimes of labor market governance: From crisis to success-story? Fafo-paper 2007:07, Oslo.Google Scholar
  36. Edwards, P. 2005. The challenging but promising future of industrial relations: Developing theory and method in context-sensitive research. Industrial Relations Journal, 36(4): 264–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Edwards, P. 2006. Power and ideology in the workplace: Going beyond even the second version of the three dimensional view. Work, Employment and Society, 20(3): 571–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Edwards, P., & Bélanger, J. 2009. The multinational firm as a contested terrain. In S. Collinson, & G. Morgan (Eds), Images of the multinational firm: 193–216. Oxford: Wiley.Google Scholar
  39. Edwards, P., Ferner, A., & Sisson, K. 1993. People and the process of management in the multinational company: A review and some illustrations. Warwick Papers in Industrial Relations. No. 43. Coventry: IRRU.Google Scholar
  40. Edwards, P., Vincent, S., & O’Mahoney, J. 2014. Concluding comments. In P. Edwards, J. O’Mahoney, & S. Vincent (Eds), Studying organizations using critical realism: 318–326. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Edwards, T., Almond, P., & Colling, T. 2011. Fleas on the backs of elephants: researching the multinational company. In R. Piekkari, & C. Welch (Eds), Rethinking the case study in international business and management research: 411–430. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  42. Edwards, T., & Ferner, A. 2002. The renewed “American challenge”: A review of employment practice in US multinationals. Industrial Relations Journal, 33(2): 94–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Edwards, T., Tregaskis, O., Collings, D., Jalette, P., & Susaeta, L. 2013. Control over employment practices in multinationals: subsidiary functions, corporate structures, and national systems. Industrial & Labor Relations Review, 66(3): 670–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Egelhoff, W. 2010. Evaluating the role of parent HQ in a contemporary MNE. In U. Andersson, & U. Holm (Eds), Managing the contemporary multinational: 106–122. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  45. Elger, T., & Smith, C. 2006. Theorizing the role of the international subsidiary: Transplants, hybrids and branch-plants revisited. In A. Ferner, J. Quintanilla, & C. Sánchez-Runde (Eds), Multinationals, institutions and the construction of transnational practices: 53–85. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Ellem, B. 2006. Scaling labor: Australian unions and global mining. Work, Employment & Society, 20(2): 369–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Ferner, A. 1997. Country-of-origin effects and HRM in multinational companies. Human Resource Management Journal, 7(1): 19–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Ferner, A. 2010. US multinationals and collective representation in European subsidiaries: Institutional resistance and accommodation. In S. Contrepois, V. Delteil, P. Dieuaide, & S. Jefferys (Eds), Globalizing employment relations and crisis: Multinational companies and Central and Eastern European transitions and transfers: 9–28. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  49. Ferner, A., Bélanger, J., Tregaskis, O., Morley, M., & Quintanilla, J. 2013. US multinationals and the control of subsidiary employment policies. Industrial & Labor Relations Review, 66(3): 645–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Ferner, A., Edwards, T., & Tempel, A. 2012. Power, institutions, and the cross-national transfer of employment practices in multinationals. Human Relations, 65(2): 163–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Ferner, A., & Quintanilla, J. 2002. Between globalization and capitalist variety: multinationals and the international diffusion of employment relations. European Journal of Industrial Relations, 8(3): 243–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Ferner, A., Quintanilla, J., & Sánchez-Runde, C. 2006. Introduction: Multinationals and the multilevel politics of cross-national diffusion. In A. Ferner, J. Quintanilla, & C. Sánchez-Runde (Eds), Multinationals, institutions and the construction of transnational practices: 1–23. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Ferner, A., Quintanilla, J., & Varul, M. 2001. Country-of-origin effects, host-country effects, and the management of HR in multinationals: German companies in Britain and Spain. Journal of World Business, 36(2): 107–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Ferner, A., & Tempel, A. 2006. Multinational and national business systems: A “power and institutions” perspective. In P. Almond, & A. Ferner (Eds), American multinationals in Europe: Managing employment relations across national borders: 10–33. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Ferner, A., Tregaskis, O., Edwards, P., Edwards, T., Marginson, P., Adam, D., & Meyer, M. 2011. HRM structures and subsidiary discretion in foreign multinationals in the UK. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22(3): 483–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Fischer, T. 1984. Ensino de administração pública no Brasil, os ideais de desenvolvimento e as dimensões da racionalidade. Tese de Doutorado em Administração. Universidade de São Paulo, USP, São Paulo.Google Scholar
  57. Fleury, A., & Fleury, M. 2014. Local enablers of business models: The experience of Brazilian multinationals acquiring in North America. Journal of Business Research, 67(4): 516–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Fleury, A., Fleury, M., & Borini, F. 2013. The Brazilian multinationals’ approaches to innovation. Journal of International Management, 19(3): 260–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Fleury, M., & Fleury, A. 2008. Challenges for late-movers in international markets. XXXII Encontro da associação nacional de pós-graduação e pesquisa em administração, 6–10 September, Rio de Janeiro.Google Scholar
  60. Fleury, A., & Fleury, M. 2011. Brazilian multinationals: competences for internationalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Gammelgaard, J. 2009. Issue selling and bargaining power in intrafirm competition: The differentiating impact of the subsidiary management composition. Competition & Change, 13(3): 214–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Geary, J., & 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Geppert, M., & Dörrenbächer, C. 2011. Politics and power in the multinational corporation: An introduction. In C. Dörrenbächer, & M. Geppert (Eds), Politics and power in the multinational corporation: 3–38. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Geppert, M., & Dörrenbächer, C. 2014. Politics and power within multinational corporations: Mainstream studies, emerging critical approaches and suggestions for future research. International Journal of Management Reviews, 16(2): 226–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Godard, J. 2009. Institutional environments, work and human resource practices, and unions: Canada versus England. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 62(2): 173–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Golden, M. 1996. Heroic defeats: The politics of job loss. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Hall, P., & Gingerich, D. 2009. Varieties of capitalism and institutional complementarities in the political economy. British Journal of Political Science, 39(3): 449–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Hall, P., & Soskice, D. 2001. Varieties of capitalism: The institutional foundations of comparative advantage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Hardy, C. 1996. Understanding power: Bringing about strategic change. British Journal of Management, 7(1): 3–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Harzing, A., & Pudelko, M. 2016. Do we need to distance ourselves from the distance concept? Why home and host country context might matter more than (cultural) distance. Management International Review, 56(1): 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Harzing, A., & Sorge, A. 2003. The relative impact of country-of-origin and universal contingencies on internationalization strategies and corporate control in multinational enterprises: Worldwide and European perspectives. Organization Studies, 24(2): 187–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Hayden, A., & Edwards, T. 2001. The erosion of the country-of-origin effect. Industrial Relations, 56(1): 116–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Heidrenreich, M. 2012. The social embeddedness of multinational companies: A literature review. Socio-Economic Review, 10(3): 549–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Hopewell, K. 2014. The transformation of state-business relations in an emerging economy: The case of Brazilian agribusiness. Critical Perspectives on International Business, 10(4): 291–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Howell, C. 2007. Trade unions and the state: The construction of industrial relations institutions in Britain, 1890–2000. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  76. Jackson, G., & Deeg, R. 2008. Comparing capitalisms: Understanding institutional diversity and its implications for international business. Journal of International Business Studies, 39(4): 540–561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Khanna, T., & Palepu, K. 2006. Emerging giants: Building world-class companies in developing countries. Harvard Business Review, 84(10): 60–69.Google Scholar
  78. Kostova, T. 1999. Transnational transfer of strategic organizational practices: A contextual perspective. Academy of Management Review, 24(2): 308–324.Google Scholar
  79. Kostova, T., & Roth, K. 2002. Adoption of an organizational practice by subsidiaries of multinational corporations: Institutional and relational effects. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1): 215–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Kostova, T., Roth, K., & Dacin, M. 2008. Institutional theory in the study of multinational corporations: A critique and new directions. Academy of Management Review, 33(4): 994–1006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Krippendorff, K. 2004. Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  82. Kristensen, P., & Zeitlin, J. 2005. Local players in global games: The strategic constitution of a multinational corporation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  83. Lane, C. 2000. Understanding the globalization strategies of German companies: Is a “societal effects” approach still useful? In M. Maurice, & A. Sorge (Eds), Embedding organizations: 189–208. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Liberman, L., & Torbiörn, I. 2000. Variances in staff-related management practices at eight European country subsidiaries of a global firm. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 11(1): 37–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Ling, Y., Baldridge, D., & Floyd, S. 2005. Toward a model of issue-selling by subsidiary managers in multinational organizations. Journal of International Business Studies, 36(6): 637–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Locke, R., & Thelen, K. 1995. Apple and oranges revisited: Contextualized comparisons and the study of comparative labor politics. Politics & Society, 23(3): 337–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Lukes, S. 2005. Power: A radical view. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  88. McAllister, M.L. 2006. Shifting foundations in a mature staples industry: A political economic history of Canadian mineral policy. Canadian Political Science Review, 1(1): 73–90.Google Scholar
  89. McDonald, P., Mayes, R., & Pini, B. 2012. Mining work, family and community. Journal of Industrial Relations, 54(1): 22–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Meardi, G., & Tóth, A. 2006. Who is hybridizing what? Insights on MNEs’ employment practices in Central Europe. In A. Ferner, J. Quintanilla, & C. Sánchez-Runde (Eds), Multinationals, institutions and the construction of transnational practices: 155–183. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Meyer, K., Mudambi, R., & Narula, R. 2011. Multinational enterprises and local contexts: The opportunities and challenges of multiple embeddedness. Journal of Management Studies, 48(2): 235–252.Google Scholar
  92. Mining Association of Canada. 2012. Fact & figures of the Canadian mining industry, www.miningclub.com/upload/archivos/FactsandFigures2012Eng_166.pdf, accessed 28 January 2013.
  93. Mir, R., & Sharpe, D. 2009. The multinational firm as an instrument of exploitation and domination. In S. Collinson, & G. Morgan (Eds), Images of the multinational firm: 247–266. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  94. Morgan, G. 2011. Reflections on the macro-politics of micro-politics. In C. Dörrenbächer, & M. Geppert (Eds), Politics and power in the multinational corporation: 415–436. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Morgan, G., Campbell, J., Crouch, C., Pedersen, O. K., & Whitley, R. 2010. The Oxford handbook of comparative institutional analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Morgan, G., Kelly, B., Sharpe, D., & Whitley, R. 2003. Global managers and Japanese multinationals: Internationalization and management in Japanese financial institutions. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14(3): 389–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Morgan, G., & Kristensen, P. 2006. The contested space of multinationals: Varieties of institutionalism, varieties of capitalism. Human Relations, 59(11): 1467–1490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Muritiba, P., Muritiba, S., de Albuquerque, L., Fleury, M., & French, J. 2012. Challenges for Brazilian MNEs’ international human resources management. European Journal of International Human Resource Management, 6(3): 248–264.Google Scholar
  99. Nicholls-Nixon, C., Davila Castilla, J., Sanchez Garcia, J., & Rivera Pesquera, M. 2011. Latin America management research: Review, synthesis, and extension. Journal of Management, 37(3): 1178–1227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. OECD Strictness of Employment Protection Index. 2013. https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=EPL_OV, accessed 28 June 2014.
  101. O’Mahoney, J., & Vincent, S. 2014. Critical realism as an empirical project: A beginner’s guide. In P. Edwards, J. O’Mahoney, & S. Vincent (Eds), Studying organizations using critical realism: 1–20. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  102. Pauly, L., & Reich, S. 1997. National structures and multinational corporate behavior: Enduring differences in the age of globalization. International Organization, 51(1): 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Perlmutter, H. 1969. A tortuous evolution of the multinational company. Columbia Journal of World Business, 4(1): 9–18.Google Scholar
  104. Piekkari, R., Welch, C., & Paavilainen, E. 2009. The case study as disciplinary convention: Evidence from international business journals. Organizational Research Methods, 12(3): 567–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Ragin, C. 1992. “Casing” and the process of social inquiry. In C. Ragin, & H. Becker (Eds), What is a case? Exploring the foundations of social inquiry: 217–226. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  106. Ragin, C. 2000. Fuzzy set social science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  107. Reed, M. 2005. Reflections on the “realist turn” in organization and management studies. Journal of Management Studies, 42(8): 1621–1644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Ribeiro, D. 1995. O povo Brasileiro: A formação e o sentido do Brasil. São Paulo: Schwarcz.Google Scholar
  109. Rocha, A., Carneiro, J., & Silva, J. 2007. Expansão internacional das empresas Brasileiras: Revisão e síntese. In M. Fleury, & A. Fleury (Eds), Internacionalização e os países emergentes: 183–197. São Paulo: Atlas.Google Scholar
  110. Royle, T. 2000. Working for McDonald’s in Europe. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  111. Royle, T. 2006. The dominance effect? Multinational corporations in the Italian quick-food service sector. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 44(4): 757–779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Ruigrok, W., & van Tulder, R. 1996. The logic of international restructuring. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  113. Saka-Helmhout, A. 2014. Critical realism and international comparative case research. In P. Edwards, J. O’Mahoney, & S. Vincent (Eds), Studying organizations using critical realism: 185–204. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  114. Schneider, B. 2009. Hierarchical market economies and varieties of capitalism in Latin America. Journal of Latin American Studies, 41(3): 553–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Schneider, B. 2013. Hierarchical capitalism in Latin America: Business, labor, and the challenge of equitable development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Schuler, R., & Rogocsky, N. 1998. Understanding compensation practice variations across firms: The impact of national culture. Journal of International Business Studies, 29(1): 159–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Scott, W. 1995. Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  118. Streeck, W. 1997. Industrial citizenship under regime competition: The case of the European works councils. Journal of European Public Policy, 4(4): 643–664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Streeck, W., & Thelen, K. 2005. Introduction: Institutional change in advanced political economies. In W. Streeck, & K. Thelen (Eds), Beyond continuity: Institutional change in advanced political economies: 1–39. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  120. Tanure, B., Barcellos, E., & Fleury, M. 2009. Psychic distance and the challenges of expatriation from Brazil. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20(5): 1039–1055.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. Tanure, B., Cyrino, Á., & Penido, É. 2007. Estratégias de internacionalização: Evidências e reflexões sobre as empresas brasileiras. In M. Fleury, & A. Fleury (Eds), Internacionalização e os países emergentes: 198–215. São Paulo: Atlas.Google Scholar
  122. Tanure, B., Evans, P., & Cançado, V. 2010. As quatro faces de RH: Analisando a performance de gestão de recursos humanos no Brasil. Revista de Administração Contemporânea, 14(4): 594–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. Tavares, M., & Ferraz, J. 2007. Translatinas: quem são, por onde avançam e que desafios enfrentam? In M. Fleury, & A. Fleury (Eds), Internacionalização e os países emergentes: 120–141. São Paulo: Atlas.Google Scholar
  124. Tempel, A., Edwards, T., Ferner, A., Muller-Camen, M., & Wächter, H. 2006. Subsidiary responses to institutional duality: Collective representation practices of US multinationals in Britain and Germany. Human Relations, 59(11): 1543–1570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. Tempel, A., & Walgenbach, P. 2007. Global standardization of organizational forms and management practices? What new institutionalism and business-system approach can learn from each other. Journal of Management Studies, 44(1): 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. Thelen, K. 2012. Varieties of capitalism: Trajectories of liberalization and the new politics of social solidarity. Annual Review of Political Science, 15(1): 137–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. Thite, M. 2015. International human resource management in multinational corporations from emerging economies. In F. Horwitz, & P. Budhwar (Eds), Handbook of human resource management in emerging markets: 97–121. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  128. Timmermans, S., & Tavory, I. 2012. Theory construction in qualitative research: From grounded theory to abductive analysis. Sociological Theory, 30(3): 167–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. Watson, T. 2004. HRM and critical social science analysis. Journal of Management Studies, 41(3): 447–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. Welch, C., Piekkari, R., Plakoyiannaki, E., & Paavilainen-Mäntymäki, E. 2011. Theorising from case studies: Towards a pluralist future for international business studies. Journal of International Business Studies, 42(5): 740–762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. Whitley, R. 1999. Divergent capitalisms: The social structuring and change of business system. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  132. Whitley, R. 2009. The multinational company as a distinct organizational form. In D. Collinson, & G. Morgan (Eds), Images of the multinational firm: 145–166. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  133. Xian, H. 2008. Lost in translation? Language, culture and the roles of translator in cross‐cultural management research. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal, 3(3): 231–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Academy of International Business 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Business, University College DublinDublinIreland
  2. 2.Durham Business SchoolDurhamUK

Personalised recommendations