When territory matters: Employer associations and changing collective goods strategies

Abstract

Recent research shows employer associations strategically responding to external challenges, from collective bargaining decentralisation, by altering their offerings of “selective” goods (to directly address threats to membership levels) and of “elective” goods (to revenues). Implicit is that traditional “collective goods” are irrelevant for achieving sustainability. That literature also suggests that territorial associations are more vulnerable than sectoral ones. In this qualitative, longitudinal comparative case study, we explore why and how two territorial associations, the largest each in Italy and Australia, have pursued sustainability by also innovatively enlarging their collective goods activities. This has involved shifting from bargaining leadership to promoting economic dynamism within their territories. Using metaorganisation theory and the resource‐based view, we explain how these associations realised their strategic advantages. Our evidence suggests that innovatively developing new collective goods may be another important way associations can improve their competitive positions.

Employer organisations transformed

“…Finally, EOs widened the provision of services to include legal services, training and development, and HRM advice. However, some EOs also promoted regional development and economic growth, which collectively benefitted members and non‐members (Sheldon et al, ).…”

“…However, one way to overcome the problem and the threat it faces to organisational survival is through offering services. These were often offered as either or both selective and elective services, with the former making membership more attractive to new and existing members and the latter enabling EOs to obtain resources (Sheldon et al, ).…”

“…The other is that the provision of selective and elective goods is not the only response to changing external circumstances, as some EOs have developed new collective goods. For example, Sheldon et al () drew on meta‐organisational and resource‐based views to argue that difficulties in competing with commercial providers within service provision has led to successful attempts by Italian and Australian territorial EOs to develop new collective goods. These goods shifted the focus of these territorial EOs away from bargaining leadership towards promoting regional economic development.…”

“…These latter services offer continuing incentives for individual employers to associate with EOs (Sheldon et al, ; Zhu & Nyland, ). However, other studies have identified alternative strategies such as generating new collective goods in the form of promoting regional development (Sheldon, Della Torre, & Nacamulli, ).…”

The collective bargaining of flexicurity: A case for sector‐level analysis? The Italian chemical and metalworking sectors compared

“…Despite a tendency in ER literature to portray employers as a monolith, either driven by a logic of cost minimisation or passive “institutions takers,” evidence suggests that their interests are actually heterogeneous and can cut across territorial, as well as functional and business boundaries (Behrens & Helfen, ; Ibsen & Navrbjerg, ; Sheldon, Della Torre, & Nacamoulli, ). In industries dominated by organisations with similar operating models (because, e.g., they are all largely internationalised, well‐established in their niche global market, and intensive both in capital and skills), employers have historically avoided disruptions at the workplace and oriented their relationship with unions towards securing consensus (Silver, ).…”