The market-based, cultural and political approaches to studying transfer can be seen as each having the potential to shed light on the issue. Some writers argue that an integrated approach, drawing on aspects of each of the three perspectives, can help our understanding of this issue. One way of exploring this is through a case study and one such firm can be found in Edwards et al. (2007).

This framework draws on a number of ideas that have been developed in the social sciences and seeks to apply them to the issue of the transfer of employment practices in multinationals. A fuller understanding of the framework can be gauged from Edwards and Ferner (2002).

This issue is a controversial one. Some observers, such as Smith and Meiskins (1995), argue that it captures a key dynamic within the international economy, but the concept has been criticised on a number of grounds, particularly that it exaggerates the way in which countries consist of one model of production or service provision. An interesting application of the idea of dominance effects which draws on data from U.S., Japanese and German MNCs is Pudelko and Harzing (2007).

Following the logic of the analysis in this chapter, adaptations to a global HRM policy can be made for such reasons as to adjust to cultural and institutional differences and due to political disputes within the firm. An illustration that will stimulate thinking on this Lunnan et al. (2005).

This question raises the broader dimensions of transfer. It is often argued that transfer means that increasingly similar practices will be found across countries, particularly if these reflect the increasing role of dominance effects; on the other hand, if transfer reflects idiosyncrasies of particular multinationals, as the logic of the international integration point suggests, then there will continue to be marked differences between multinationals within the global economy.