To what extent is there a regional logic in the management of labour in multinational companies? Evidence from Europe and North America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper questions the extent to which a regional logic is adopted by multinationals in how they organise their operations overseas, and seeks to examine the variation within and across regions in this regard. Data are drawn from two of the parallel surveys of employment practice undertaken by the INTREPID (is a research network of academics across 10 countries engaged in comparative research on multinationals) network, namely Canada and the UK. The analysis tests four hypotheses regarding the similarity and differences in the adoption of a regional logic using the data as illustrative of firms in the regions of North American and European. Our analysis demonstrates how divergent structures and dynamics of regional integration in different continents have led to different strategies and processes in multinational companies. In doing so the paper provides insights into the nature of variation within the multinational community and across regional contexts. Keywords: HRMinternational managementmultinationalsregional structures Acknowledgements This article draws on data from a large-scale survey on 'Employment Practices in Multinationals in Organisational Context'. This study was funded by the UK Economic and Social Research Council (award numbers RES-000-23-0305 and RES-062-23-2080) and in Canada by the Social Science Research Council. Notes †Current address: University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".