 In this topic, we will be talking about the key issues in international industrial relations. This topic will deal with the issues or the dimensions of the industry or the organization or the context which affect how the organization should deal with the industrial relations aspect. So it could be an aspect of the organization or it could be a historical aspect or it could be an aspect from the environment which affects how you should be, how your industrial relations arrangement is going to be affected. So let's take a look at these aspects. So in the industrial relations policies and practices of multinational corporations that are affected by these dimensions, we are going to discuss those. The number one is the degree of inter subsidiary production integration. And now this is the amount of inter integration between the multinational headquarters and the subsidiary or between two or more subsidiaries working under the same multinational corporation. So if subsidiaries depend on each other, for example, raw material or for some kind of resources, if they will be dependent, if the production is integrated between the subsidiaries or between the headquarters and the subsidiary, in that case, if the dependence is there, then the industrial relations aspect will be more centralized. Because it is integrated production, so this is why the multinational wants their processes to be smooth. And then the uniform industrial relations policy should be implemented so that the same policy is implemented in one subsidiary and the same policy is implemented in another subsidiary so that your production process is integrated, then your processes should be smoothed. So the more integration there will be, the more industrial relations will be centralized. If the subsidiaries are independent, they are not dependent on the production process level, then it is possible that the multinational will give more flexibility and more autonomy to the subsidiary itself. For example, the subsidiaries of Nestle are making a mill pack here or are making a pure life of Nestle. Their production is not dependent on any other subsidiary working in any other country. They are independent in the production process. They collect raw material from here, from here, whatever production process is implemented on it. But for example, if you talk about Toyota or Honda, they come from Japan, from somewhere else, from China, they are outsourced here, local industries are made here. So it means that your production process is quite dependent on different subsidiaries or on the headquarters that are working in Japan or elsewhere in the world. So in that case, your industrial relation aspect is going to be more centralized where the production process is more integrated. Then another aspect which is now, it is something cultural, that is the nationality of ownership of the subsidiary. So from research, we know that the multinational nationality, that is, the parent company that belongs to it, that thing also affects your industrial relations. So there is difference between European and US-held multinational companies. The US-held multinational companies, they tend to keep a formal management system and a closed reporting system. So the human resource management aspect that is based on more supervision, it is based on more performance orientation, it is based on more individualism. So because of that, US-based companies do not focus a lot on the industrial relations, rather they are more focused on managing people and managing employees at the organizational level. Whereas on the other hand, British foreign-owned multinational companies, they prefer single employer bargaining and assert more managerial prerogative than British-owned firms. So this is about the UK, that firms which are working in the UK and our foreign companies, they allow more industrial relations dynamics in their organization. They are more flexible towards collective bargaining. They allow more power of the trade unions on themselves and they respond to the trade unions more effectively than the foreign-owned multinational companies in Britain. Then US-owned subsidiaries, so US-owned subsidiaries which are working in other countries, they are more centralized in labor relations decision making than British-owned companies. So British-owned companies give you more autonomy to manage your industrial relations, whereas US-owned subsidiaries keep things more in control and more centralized and keep industrial relations in their hands, subsidiaries do not give autonomy and flexibility. So even nationalities have an effect on how you manage your industrial relations. Then another aspect of this is the international human resource management approach. So you will remember that we read in previous topics that ethnocentric approach can be or geocentric approach can be. Majorly, we have done research on these two approaches. So the ethnocentric approach is that you are bound with your culture and you do not show flexibility. So in ethnocentric approach, this research has come up with more conflicts. So obviously, when you do not accept that the culture of the other country is different and you have to take into account and you keep on being stuck to your own cultural values. So obviously, there is more possibility of conflict and therefore industrial relation conflicts are more prevalent when there is an ethnocentric approach. Whereas in the geocentric approach, the organization, it gains more influence on the industrial relation dynamics. So they become more influential because they give a kind of flexible attitude towards the culture, towards the dynamics of the particular context of that country. So you can see that in European countries, industrial relations has been a part of employee and employer relationship and it has emerged from a culture of collective bargaining between the employer and employer. So they are more flexible and more accepting towards trade unions and collective bargaining, whereas the US firms, they are not. Another aspect which affects your industrial relations dynamics is the subsidiary characteristics. So those subsidiaries, they are formed by acquisition of well-established local firms get more autonomy. So you will remember that there are many different dynamics of subsidiary formation. So acquisition, which gives a well-equipped or well-established firm acquisition of local firms, there, industrial relations are given more autonomy. Obviously, it is a set up which is already established and multinationals have only acquired it from outside. So by acquiring it, they provide a lot of autonomy to them. Then subsidiaries that have more strategic importance and that are young, they are kept more under centralized control. So the subsidiaries whose strategic importance are more for your organization and now that they are on a younger stage, they have just been formed and they have not yet established that they would be successful or not, they are kept more under centralized control. Then there is also greater intervention by the headquarters when the subsidiary is dependent on the parent firm for resources. So if you are independent, if you are dependent on your parent company for financial or human resources, then the intervention will be more or in a situation when the subsidiary is performing poorly. So in such a situation, the intervention will be more visible to you in industrial relations. Apart from that, another important aspect is the characteristics of the home product market. This was also in the last topic that if your home product market is extensive, then your HR policies are different. Similarly, your industrial relations also depend on your home product market. If your home product market is very extensive, if your sales keep a major proportion in your own country, for example, 80% sales of your product are in your own country, then your subsidiary will be considered your extension. In such a situation, there would be more control exercised by the multinational on the subsidiary. Whereas if your product market is larger outside your national boundaries, for example, there are a lot of British and European firms, their own national market is not as much as their market is in the outside world. Because obviously, there are small countries, there is a small population, but if you look at America, then it is such a big country, it has such a big population, like India or China. So the European countries have their own markets, they are not as much in their countries as they are in the outside world. So in such a situation, your subsidiaries multinational will provide more control because they depend on the product market. Then another aspect is the management attitudes towards unions. We see that in the America, it has a deep-rooted aversion to unionism. It has always been a culture for unionism to be suppressed because it started from a culture of slavery. So slavery was also suppressed, rights of slaves and rights of equal human rights. But it is a culture to subdue unionism. US management ideology is based on individualism, pragmatism, and decentralization. So when you talk about individualism, then how will you do collective bargaining? Similarly, when you talk about pragmatism, pragmatism, and it is also based on the capitalist laws, that whatever work you do, you will get the return of it. Whether it is on the individual, or on the economy, or on the organization. So there is no margin of bargaining. It is not a socialist culture, it is more of a capitalist culture. It is based on the capitalist laws of economy. So in the US, the attitude of management is more averse towards unions. Then another aspect which affects the management attitudes is the trade union density. So we see that the trade union density is highest in Norway, Denmark, Finland, etc. And it is lowest in France, US, and Korea. So you see that the national differences between the trade union density that also affects the way trade unions and industrial relations are managed. Then we see that an aspect of these international relations is strike proneness, which organizations are more strike prone. And strike proneness is measured by strike frequency, strike size, and strike duration. And it was researched between multinational and local firms. So multinational, they were less strike prone and local firms, they were more strike prone. But what happened was that when strikes happened in the local firms, the strike duration was less than in multinational firms. Why? Because the multinational firms, they allowed the employees to go on a strike and they did not respond to that. What happens with the local firms is that they do not have the resources, they do not have the money, they do not have the time to allow the employees to go on a strike. Whereas multinational have a lot of resources, they say that if they go on a strike, it does not make any difference. When their mind is at peace, they will come back. So the strike duration, so you can see more in those multinational firms because local firms immediately react that they have brought back their employees, how will our business go? So there are so many various different aspects which affect the international relations policies of these multinational and all must be taken into account by the human resource managers of these multinational. A researcher concludes it in these words that general statements cannot be applied to the organization of the labor relation functions within the MNCs. Rather, different MNCs adopt different labor relation strategies in relation to the environmental factors, peculiar to each firm. In other words, it is the type of multinational under consideration which is important rather than multinationality itself. So it's not about that you are a multinational, it's not about multinationality, it's about the fact that what type of multinational it is individually that will affect what type of labor relation policies should be framed by that particular multinational company.