Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

Employee representation and consultative voice in multinational companies operating in Britain

By Paul Marginson, P. K. Edwards, Tony Edwards, Anthony Ferner and Olga Tregaskis

Abstract

Multinational companies (MNCs) from different countries of origin are widely held to have distinct preferences regarding the presence of employee representative structures and the form that employee 'voice' over management decisions takes. Such preferences are said to derive from the national models that prevail in the different countries of origin in which MNCs are based. Findings from a large-scale survey of the UK operations of MNCs indicate that country-of-origin influences on patterns of employee representation and emphasis on direct or indirect channels of employee 'voice' are attenuated by other factors, notably sector and method of growth. They also reveal significant recent innovation in representation and voice arrangements by this key group of employers

Topics: HD28
Publisher: Wiley-Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Year: 2009
OAI identifier: oai:wrap.warwick.ac.uk:3297

Suggested articles

Citations

  1. (2007). [confirm in public domain before citing] Dølvik,
  2. (2009). All Change at Work? doi
  3. (2007). Collective and individual voice: convergence in doi
  4. (2006). Collective representation and participation’ doi
  5. (2000). Converging Divergencies
  6. (1997). Country of origin effects and HRM in multinational companies’ doi
  7. (1992). Developments in the Management of Human Resources doi
  8. (2005). Direct involvement, representation and employee voice in UK multinationals in doi
  9. (1992). Double-breasted recognition arrangements in doi
  10. (2004). European Integration and Industrial Relations Basingstoke: doi
  11. (1970). Exit, Voice and Loyalty Cambridge, doi
  12. (2008). Foreign ownership and industrial relations in the UK’
  13. (1995). France: from conflict to social dialogue?’ in Rogers J and Streeck W (eds) Works Councils: Consultation, Representation and Co-operation in Industrial Relations Chicago: doi
  14. (2005). German multinational companies in the United Kingdom’ Report to the Hans Boeckler Stiftung,
  15. (1996). How different are human resource practices in Japanese transplants doi
  16. (2005). Inside the Workplace London: doi
  17. (1993). Japan in Wales: a new industrial relations’, doi
  18. (2004). Managerial responsiveness to union and non-union voice in doi
  19. (2007). Measuring Globalisation: doi
  20. (1996). National ownership and HR practices in UK greenfield sites’ doi
  21. (2005). Policies on union representation in doi
  22. (2000). Recent survey evidence on participation in doi
  23. (1992). Social Institutions and Economic Performance doi
  24. (1993). The control of industrial relations doi
  25. (2006). The influence of national business systems and company characteristics on the cross-national transfer of employee participation practices’
  26. (2006). The power to create or obstruct employee voice’ doi
  27. (2006). The sound of silence: which employers choose no employee voice and why’ doi
  28. (2007). Transnational corporations, extractive industries and development’ World Investment Report doi
  29. (2005). Unravelling home and host country effects’ doi
  30. (2000). Vanguard” subsidiaries and the diffusion of new practices’ doi
  31. (2001). Varieties of Capitalism doi
  32. (2006). Voice at work … What do employers want?’ doi
  33. (1984). What do Unions Do? doi
  34. (2007). What voice do British workers want?’ in
  35. (2007). What Workers Say doi
  36. (2007). Why should employers bother with worker voice?’ in

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.