Where are they going? Case of British and Japanese human resource management

DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1108/JABS-07-2015-0111
Published date07 August 2017
Pages296-322
Date07 August 2017
AuthorWilliam Il kuk Kang,Gaston Fornes
Subject MatterStrategy,International business
Where are they going? Case of British and
Japanese human resource management
William Il kuk Kang and Gaston Fornes
William Il kuk Kang is
based at University of
Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Gaston Fornes is based
at School of Sociology
Politics and International
Studies, University of
Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explore and understand corporate social responsibility
(CSR) and human resource management (HRM) practices of the UK and Japan, who share opposing
societal and cultural characteristics, from a national business system (NBS) perspective, to answer the
following two questions: the extent of convergence/divergence of CSR-HRM of two very different NBS,
and the institutional relations behind the convergence/divergence.
Design/methodology/approach For these purposes, the paper proposes a framework that can be
utilised to understand the complex relationships between institutions, HRM, and CSR. Using a
qualitative approach and grounded theory analysis as well as multiple-case analysis of six cases from
the UK and Japan, the findings are tested against the framework.
Findings The paper was able to confirm that mimetic and coercive isomorphism from global
institutional pressure cause certain convergence of CSR-HRM in these two nations. However,
simultaneously, the local institutional pressure (i.e. NBS) appears to be deeply rooted and is more
salient at micro-level, resulting in diversified CSR-HRM in the two nations. As a result, it appears that
convergence and divergence co-exist due to their differences in NBS with possibility of
“crossvergence”.
Originality/value This paper’s significance lies not only in contributing to the existing convergence–
divergence debate on both CSR and HRM but also to help understanding of how Western CSR-HRM
concepts are utilized and interpreted in East Asian countries with very different NBS from the West, with
the aid of the proposed framework.
Keywords Qualitative research, Corporate social responsibility, Comparative analysis,
Cross-cultural analysis, Human resource management, Business and society
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
As Carney et al. (2009) and Pudelko (2009) point out, with the recent global financial
crisis and globalisation, many organisational management practices are transitioning
dynamically. This is further evidenced by wide acceptance of corporate social
responsibility (CSR) in management practice. CSR addresses broad areas of
organisations and society, and one of the key areas is its emphasis on stakeholders’
expectations (Aguinis et al., 2012;Geva, 2008). Employees are considered primary
stakeholders (Bauman and Skitka, 2012;Phillip, 2003), and they are scarce and
valuable resources given our current ageing population (Guest et al., 2003). It is argued
that one of the key challenges that organisations face in the modern period is to achieve
competitive advantage through long-term sustainability, along with “responsible
competition” (Saeed et al., 2012). To do so, it is imperative to utilise these valuable and
scarce resources well (Barney, 1995). In this paper, we explore the extent to which
employee management styles are converging/diverging as a result of CSR and the
nature of institutional factors behind this convergence/divergence. From the
institutional theory perspective, the transition is due to increasing global societal
pressure resulted from globalisation and rapid technological development; further,
Received 30 July 2015
Revised 4 July 2016
10 August 2016
27 August 2016
Accepted 5 September 2016
PAGE 296 JOURNAL OF ASIA BUSINESS STUDIES VOL. 11 NO. 3, 2017, pp. 296-322, © Emerald Publishing Limited, ISSN 1558-7894 DOI 10.1108/JABS-07-2015-0111
such pressure leads organisations to converge upon common models or behaviours,
regardless of their national boundaries (DiMaggio et al., 1983,1991;Meyer, 2008;
Jepperson, 2001;Meyer et al., 1977,1997;Scott, 1987). However, others argue that
despite the transition, divergence would occur due to different societal and cultural
values, which cause them to have different national business systems (NBS) (Whitley,
1994;Hall and Soskice, 2001). Such debates around convergence and divergence also
appear in the CSR field, though they are relatively new. CSR infrastructures, such as UN
Global Compact and Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), among many other CSR
consultancies, show signs of convergence (see Waddock, 2008). Meanwhile, Matten
and Moon (2008) show that diversity occurs as a result of differences in NBS. However,
these debates have been largely based on the Western perspective of CSR. A majority
of CSR international infrastructures are originated in the USA or Europe, and as Wang
and Juslin (2009) pointed out, they do not coordinate well with the Chinese business
system because they are established without serious consideration of how well their
systems can be associated with the Eastern business systems, which are very different
from the West.
Expanding Wang and Juslin’s argument, this paper contributes to the convergence/
divergence debate through examinations and comparisons of human resource
management (HRM) in one Western nation and one Eastern nation (the UK and Japan) after
the introduction of CSR, and explores the extent of their convergence/divergence. Many
studies have been done on understanding Japanese management and its international
comparison (Beecher et al., 1996;Dore, 1973;Hatvany et al., 1981;Jacoby, 2005;Keeley,
2001;Kopp, 1994;Morris et al., 2000;Oliver and Wilkinson, 1992;Tayeb, 1994), due to
Japanese economic success that earned much praise in the 1980s (before its downfall in
1990s), as well as its significant impact on the UK’s HRM in the past. However, given that
both Japan and the UK are the leading contributors to CSR, along with the USA (Wang and
Juslin, 2009;Lee and Choi, 2002), it is worth revisiting them. Furthermore, while the two
nations share very different NBS (compartmentalised vs highly coordinated) and
societal-cultural background (individualism vs collectivism) (Whitley, 2000;Hofstede,
2001), they both participate in various Western-developed international CSR
infrastructures, such as UN Global Compact, GRI, and ISO 26,000. Thus, these two nations
can be argued as ideal environments to measure the extent of convergence/divergence,
and (more importantly) to understand institutional influences supporting or impeding any
changes. To assist this paper, the research capitalises primarily on NBS. Though
institutional theory and NBS accept the influence of institutional environments on
organisations, there is a key difference. As implied at the beginning, institutional theory
emphasises global diffusion of practices as a result of global isomorphic pressures through
coercive, mimetic and normative process (DiMaggio et al., 1983,1991). NBS, on the other
hand, points out that there is an historically grown institutional framework, which also
includes societal-cultural institutions, and influences businesses that operate within it
(Whitley, 1994,2000). It acknowledges the institutional differences between nations and
business systems, and further allows comparison of two nations by identifying key points of
contrast between the business systems (Matten and Moon, 2008). Therefore, it is
particularly useful in cross-national comparison, in contrast to institutional theory, which
shows weakness in explaining how practices are interpreted elsewhere (Tempel and
Walgenbach, 2007). Thus, it can be understood as an ideal model to measure the extent
of convergence/divergence of HRM in the two nations after the introduction of CSR.
With this in mind, in the following section, CSR will be introduced, with a focus on HRM
using the existing literature, which will be followed by a review of NBS as an analytical
framework. A brief overview of NBS and HRM in the UK and Japan will follow, and then a
description of methodology, presentation of data results and discussion. Finally, the
limitations to this research will be outlined, as well as possible recommendations for future
research.
VOL. 11 NO. 3 2017 JOURNAL OF ASIA BUSINESS STUDIES PAGE 297

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT