Search results

Volume 12 of Advances in Industrial and Labor Relations (AILR) contains eight papers that deal with contemporary and historical aspects of unionism and other forms of union representation, union-management relations, union political activity, labor market regulation, and interpretations of selected leading labor scholars’ writings about the evolution of welfare capitalism in the U.S. Four of these papers, by Daniel & Siebert, Borgers, Rubinstein, and Pereles, were winners of the 2002 AILR/Industrial Relations Research Association (IRRA) “best papers” competition.¹

JoAnn Wypijewski, reflecting on the experience of workers laid off from General Electric’s (GE) Bloomington, Indiana refrigerator plant, as GE announced profits of $12.7 billion, and the relocation of half the production to Celaya, Mexico, asks: What will it take to match fire with fire at GE, not just in Bloomington but everywhere? Twenty years ago, Jack Welch openly articulated a strategy for taking the company to where it is today. The GE unions never developed a parallel strategy, and 100,000 lost jobs later, most of them still haven’t shed their faith in what the AFL-CIO likes to call “high-road capitalism.” During the 2000 national contract talks, Robert Thayer, the Machinists’ representative to the CBC, was trying to convince the company to agree not to interfere in future unionization drives, arguing that a “contract is a partnership, not a hindrance.” To which the company coolly asserted, “GE has never been neutral and doesn’t intend to be neutral” (Wypijewski, 2001, p. 22).GE has become an icon of global capital mobility and union avoidance. However, GE’s current capacities can be traced back to a long term, explicit strategy of corporate reorganization initiated in the 1940s. At that time GE was a vertically integrated manufacturing conglomerate, based in a series of huge, northern U.S. plants, organized at extremely high density by the left and militant UE. In the sixty years since, GE has transformed itself into a networked and globalized conglomerate, whose manufacturing capacity has been relocated endlessly, first into smaller U.S. greenfield sites and then increasingly overseas, decimating U.S. union density, and replacing UE with a patchwork of AFL-CIO affiliates that have embraced a far more conservative and limited vision of unionism. U.S. labor has been unable to halt this transformation.

The literature has recognized the key role of the human resource management (HRM) practices for enhancing firms’ innovative performance. At the same time, scholars have consistently demonstrated open innovation (OI) to be an effective approach for boosting companies’ innovative outcome. Nevertheless, academics have largely overlooked to investigate the complex relationship between HRM practices, OI and organizations’ innovativeness, while claiming further research on organizational antecedents on OI. Using the ability, motivation and opportunity (AMO) framework as analytical lens, this study investigates the direct and indirect relationship between AMO-enhancing practices and firms’ innovation capacity, hypothesizing a potential mediating role of OI.

Drawing from the European Company Survey 2019, a large-scale representative dataset of more than 20,000 establishments at European level and building on the “human-side” of OI, the study proposes two hypotheses regarding the relationship between AMO-enhancing practices and OI in fostering product and process innovation in European firms.

The results show that companies that invest in AMO-enhancing practices not only have higher probability to innovate, but also are more inclined to collaborate with external partners. Moreover, OI not only enhances the innovation capacity of the firm but also partially mediates the relationship between HRM and organizations’ innovativeness.

This is one of the first studies which empirically investigate how the AMO framework increases the likelihood of engaging in an OI process by firms, thereby, increasing their innovation capacity. The results shed further lights on both “the human side” of OI, as well as in the mechanisms linking HRM practices with innovation. Moreover, the analysis provides a deeper understanding about the organizational antecedents of the OI process, as well as corroborating the recent theoretical contributions on HRM and OI.

In 2008, Paul De Knop (Vrije Universiteit Brussels) stated that “in spite of the social value of sport and its role as a policy tool, human sport sciences still lack a fulfilling position in the academic world.” In Belgium and in Flanders (the northern and Dutch-speaking part of the country), the sociology of sport is still a small field of research among the sport sciences. The discipline is institutionalized within the institutes of physical education of the three universities (University of Ghent; Katholieke Universiteit Leuven; Vrije Universiteit Brussels). The scarcity of academic funding streams resulted in a focus on more applied, policy-based research in Flanders. Additionally, all institutes emphasize increasingly an interdisciplinary cooperation to connect with stronger research fields (e.g., health sciences, social studies, or international studies on sport participation). Even though each university has its own research tradition, the universities and the government cooperate in a longitudinal study on sport participation in Flanders. De Knop, who became rector of the Vrije Universiteit Brussels (VUB) in 2008, was the first lecturer of the course sociology of sport at his university. He graduated in 1975 as licentiate in physical education and his career at the university converged with the development of the discipline. Together with Roland Renson and Bart Vanreusel (KU Leuven), he was one of the academic pioneers for the sociology of sport in Flanders.

Presented at the “Disarm! For a Climate of Peace” meeting held on September 30–October 3, 2016 in Berlin and organized by the International Peace Bureau.