Using firm-level data from Germany, this study examines the link between foreign ownership and the coverage by centralized (multi-employer) bargaining agreements. Conforming to theoretical considerations, the empirical analysis shows that it is important to distinguish between a direct and an indirect influence of foreign ownership on centralized collective bargaining. The direct influence of foreign ownership lowers the probability that a firm is covered by a centralized agreement. The indirect influence works through the unionization of the workforce. If the size of the firm does not exceed a critical level, the indirect influence counteracts the direct influence. Foreign ownership leads to a higher share of union members which, in turn, has a positive influence on the coverage by a centralized agreement. However, in very large firms the indirect influence appears to be negative. Foreign ownership is associated with a lower share of union members.
AddisonJTBrysonATeixeiraP, et al. (2013) The extent of collective bargaining and workplace representation: Transitions between states and their determinants. A comparative analysis of Germany and Great Britain. Scottish Journal of Political Economy60: 182–209.
2.
AddisonJTTeixeiraPPahnkeA, et al. (2017) The demise of a model? The state of collective bargaining and worker representation in Germany. Economic and Industrial Democracy38: 193–234.
3.
BalsvikRSæthreM (2014) Rent sharing with footloose production. Foreign ownership and wages revisited. Discussion Paper Series in Economics 30/2014, Norwegian School ofEconomics.
4.
BaronRMKennyDA (1986) The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology51: 1173–1182.
5.
Bayo-MorionesAGaldon-SanchezJEMartinez-de-MorentinS (2013) The diffusion of pay for performance across occupations. Industrial and Labor Relations Review66: 1115–1148.
6.
BellakC (2004) How domestic and foreign firms differ and why does it matter?Journal of Economic Surveys18: 483–514.
7.
BergerHNeugartM (2011) How German labor courts decide: An econometric case study. German Economic Review13: 56–70.
8.
BernardABSjoeholmF (2003) Foreign owners and plant survival. NBER Working Paper No. 10039.
9.
BlanchflowerDGCrouchleyREstrinS, et al. (1990) Unemployment and the demand for unions. NBER Working Paper No. 3251.
10.
BloomNVan ReenenJ (2010) Why Do management practices differ across firms and countries?Journal of Economic Perspectives24: 203–224.
11.
BognannoMFKeaneMYangD (2005) The influence of wages and industrial relations environments on the production location decisions of U.S. Multinational corporations. Industrial and Labor Relations Review58: 171–200.
12.
BoothA (1985) The free rider problem and a social custom model of trade union membership. Quarterly Journal of Economics100: 253–261.
13.
BraunS (2009) Should trade unions welcome foreign investors? First evidence from Danish matched employer-employee data. Economics Bulletin29: 1175–1181.
14.
CavesRE (1971) International corporations: The industrial economics of foreign investment. Economica38: 1–27.
15.
CookeWN (2001) The effects of labour costs and workplace constraints on foreign direct investment among highly industrialized countries. International Journal of Human Resource Management12: 697–716.
16.
CookeWNNobleDS (1998) Industrial relations systems and US foreign direct investment abroad. British Journal of Industrial Relations36: 581–609.
17.
DillVJirjahnU (2016) Foreign owners and perceived job insecurity in Germany: Evidence from matched employer-employee data. International Journal of Manpower37: 1286–1303.
18.
DillVJirjahnU (2017) Foreign owners and the quality of industrial relations in Germany. Economic and Industrial Democracy38: 5–25.
19.
DillVJirjahnUSmithSC (2016) Do foreign owners favor short-term profit? Evidence from Germany. Cambridge Journal of Economics40: 123–140.
20.
DoeringerPBEvans-KlockCTerklaDG (1998) Hybrids or hodgepodges? Workplace practices of Japanese and domestic startups in the United States. Industrial and Labor Relations Review51: 171–186.
21.
EdwardsTSanchez-MangasRJaletteP, et al. (2016) Global standardization or national differentiation of HRM practices in multinational companies? A comparison of multinationals in five countries. Journal of International Business Studies47: 997–1021.
22.
EllguthPKohautS (2014) Tarifbindung und betriebliche interessenvertretung: Ergebnisse aus dem IAB-betriebspanel 2013. WSI Mitteilungen67: 286–295.
23.
FabbriFHaskelJESlaughterMJ (2003) Does nationality of ownership matter for labor demands?Journal of the European Economic Association1: 698–707.
24.
FernerAEdwardsP (1995) Power and the diffusion of organizational change within multinational enterprises. European Journal of Industrial Relations1: 229–257.
25.
FreemanRBGibbonsR (1995) Getting together and breaking apart: The decline of centralized collective bargaining. In: FreemanRBKatzLF (eds) Differences and Changes in Wage Structures. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 345–370.
26.
FreemanRBLazearEP (1995) An economic analysis of works councils. In: RogersJStreeckW (eds) Works Councils – Consultation, Representation and Cooperation in Industrial Relations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 27–52.
27.
FreemanRBKruseDBlasiJ (2008) The same yet different: Worker reports on labour practices and outcomes in a single firm across countries. Labour Economics15: 750–771.
28.
GearyJFRocheWK (2001) Multinationals and human resource practices in Ireland: A rejection of the ‘New conformance thesis’. International Journal of Human Resource Management12: 109–127.
29.
GirmaSGoergH (2004) Outsourcing, foreign ownership, and productivity: Evidence from UK establishment-level data. Review of International Economics12: 817–832.
GoerkeLPannenbergM (2010) An economic analysis of dismissal legislation: Determinants of severance pay in West Germany. International Review of Law and Economics30: 71–85.
32.
GoerkeLPannenbergM (2011) Trade union membership and dismissal. Labour Economics18: 810–821.
33.
GoerkeLPannenbergM (2012) Risk aversion and trade-union membership. Scandinavian Journal of Economics114: 275–295.
34.
GreerIHauptmeierM (2016) Management whipsawing: The staging of labor competition under globalization. Industrial and Labor Relations Review69: 29–52.
35.
HammHKleinerM (2007) Do industrial relations institutions influence foreign direct investment? Evidence from OECD nations. Industrial Relations46: 305–328.
36.
HarrisR (2009) The Effect of Foreign Mergers and Acquisitions on UK Productivity and Employment. Final Report Submitted to UK Trade & Investment.
37.
HelpmanE (2006) Trade, FDI, and the organization of firms. Journal of Economic LiteratureXLIV: 589–630.
38.
HeywoodJSJirjahnU (2014) Variable pay, industrial relations and foreign ownership: Evidence from Germany. British Journal of Industrial Relations52: 521–552.
39.
HeywoodJSHüblerOJirjahnU (1998) Variable payment schemes and industrial relations: Evidence from Germany. Kyklos54: 237–257.
40.
HüblerOJirjahnU (2003) Works councils and collective bargaining in Germany: The impact on productivity and wages. Scottish Journal of Political Economy50: 1–21.
41.
HymanR (2001) European integration and industrial relations. A case of variable geometry?Antipode33: 468–483.
42.
JirjahnU (2016) The contribution of labour economics to the analysis of unions and collective bargaining in Germany. In: ArtusI, et al. (eds) Developments in German Industrial Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 187–220.
43.
JirjahnU (2017) Works councils and collective bargaining in Germany: A simple theoretical extension to reconcile conflicting empirical findings. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics173: 322–346.
44.
JirjahnU (2021) Foreign ownership and intra-firm union density in Germany. Economic and Industrial Democracy 42: 1052–1079.
JirjahnUSmithSC (2018) Nonunion employee representation: Theory and the German experience with mandated works councils. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics89: 201–234.
47.
JuddCMKennyDA (1981) Process analysis: Estimating mediation in treatment evaluations. Evaluation Review5: 602–619.
48.
KatzH (1993) The decentralization of collective bargaining: A literature review and comparative analysis. Industrial and Labor Relations Review47: 3–22.
49.
KwonHYPontussonJ (2010) Globalization, labor power and partisan politics revisited. Socio-Economic Review8: 251–281.
50.
LindbeckASnowerD (2001) Centralized bargaining and reorganized work: Are they compatible?European Economic Review45: 1851–1875.
51.
MacKinnonDPLockwoodCMWilliamsJ (2007) Mediation analysis. Annual Review of Psychology58: 593–614.
52.
MarginsonP (2016) Trade unions and multinational companies: A multi-level challenge. Warwick Papers in Industrial Relations No. 103.
53.
MarginsonPMeardiG (2009) Multinational companies and collective bargaining. European Industrial Relations Observatory Online. Available at:www.eurofound.europa.eu (accessed 3 December 2021).
54.
MarginsonPSissonK (1996) Multinational companies and the future of collective bargaining: A review of the research issues. European Journal of Industrial Relations2: 173–197.
55.
MarkusenJ (1995) The boundaries of multinational enterprises and the theory of international trade. Journal of Economic Perspectives9: 169–189.
56.
MartinezLMWestonS (1994) New management practices in a multinational corporation: The restructuring of worker representation and rights?Industrial Relations Journal25: 110–121.
57.
MatiaskeWTobschVFietzeS (2009) Erfolgs- und kapitalbeteiligung von beschäftigten in deutschland. Berichte der Werkstatt für Organisations- und Personalforschung No. 18, Berlin.
58.
MeriküllJRõõmT (2014) Are foreign-owned firms different? Comparisons of employment volatility and elasticity of labour demand. Working Paper No. 1704, European Central Bank.
59.
MuellerFPurcellJ (1992) The Europeanization of manufacturing and the decentralization of bargaining: Multinational management strategies in the European automobile industry. International Journal of Human Resource Management3: 15–34.
60.
MullerM (1998) Human resources and industrial relations practices of UK and US multinationals in Germany. International Journal of Human Resource Management9: 732–749.
61.
NavarettiGBChecchiDTurriniA (2003) Adjusting labor demand: Multinational versus national firms: A cross-European analysis. Journal of the European Economic Association1: 708–719.
62.
OECD (2017) OECD Employment Outlook 2017. Paris: OECD Publishing.
63.
OlneyW (2013) A race to the bottom? Employment protection and foreign direct investment. Journal of International Economics 91: 191–203.
64.
OlsonM (1965) The Logic of Collective Action. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
65.
PasterTOude NijhuisDKieckerM (2020) To extend or not to extend: Explaining the divergent Use of statutory bargaining extensions in the Netherlands and Germany. British Journal of Industrial Relations58: 532–557.
66.
PoutsmaELigthartPVeersmaU (2006) The diffusion of calculative and collaborative HRM practices in European firms. Industrial Relations45: 513–546.
67.
RaessDBurgoonB (2006) The dogs that sometimes bark: Globalization and works council bargaining in Germany. European Journal of Industrial Relations12: 287–309.
68.
RamaswamyRRowthornR (1993) Centralized bargaining, efficiency wages and flexibility. Working Paper No. 93/25, International Monetary Fund.
69.
ScheveKSlaughterMJ (2004) Economic insecurity and the globalization of production. American Journal of Political Science48: 662–674.
70.
SchmittM (2003) Deregulation of the German industrial relations system via foreign direct investment: Are the subsidiaries of Anglo-Saxon MNCs a threat for the institutions of industrial democracy in Germany?Economic and Industrial Democracy24: 349–377.
71.
SchnabelCZagelmayerSKohautS (2006) Collective bargaining structure and its determinants: An empirical analysis with British and German establishment data. European Journal of Industrial Relations12: 165–188.
72.
SlaughterMJ (2001) International trade and labor-demand elasticities. Journal of International Economics54: 27–56.
73.
TempelAEdwardsTFernerA, et al. (2006) Subsidiary responses to institutional duality: Collective representation practices of US multinationals in Britain and Germany. Human Relations59: 1543–1570.
74.
VisserJ (2015) ICTWSS Data base. Version 5.0. Amsterdam, Amsterdam Institute for Advanced Labour Studies AIAS.
75.
VitolsS (2001) Unternehmensführung und Arbeitsbeziehungen in Deutschen Tochtergesellschaften Großer Ausländischer Unternehmen. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann Stiftung und Hans Böckler Stiftung.
76.
WagnerJWeche GeluebckeJP (2012) Foreign ownership and firm survival: First evidence for enterprises in Germany. International Economics132: 117–139.
77.
WalshJ (2001) Human resource management in foreign-owned workplaces: Evidence from Australia. Journal of International Human Resource Management12: 425–444.
78.
WangWCookMSeifertR (2021) Foreign ownership and job insecurity during the recession: The moderating effect of union density in the UK. Economic and Industrial Democracy 42: 785–804.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
