Questions to be considered include whether existing HRM approaches are relevant into other contexts, similarities and differences in HRM systems across different countries, reasons for these similarities and differences, and influence of institutions and cultural factors on the HRM approaches.

The Harvard model provides a broad classification of the content of HRM, covers a range of outcomes at different levels and hence it can be useful for comparative analysis. However, this model cannot explain complex relationships between strategic management and HRM and cannot predict relationship between HRM policies and outcomes.

5-P stands for philosophy (statement to define business values and culture), policies (guidelines for people-related business issues), programmes (activities and efforts to address people-related business issues), practices (roles behaviours), and processes (definition of how HR activities are carried out).

1. the country of origin effect;

2. host political, legal, economic and socio-cultural environments. The larger the distance between home and host environments, the more difficult the HRM transfer;

3. firm characteristics. The effect of country of origin is embedded in firm-specific factors. Therefore, MNEs’ IHRM policies and practices are in fact the outcome of the concurrent impact of host-contextual and firm-specific factors.

Institutional forces of coercion and imitation play an important role in IHRM. Norms and expectations shared by members of a society or a particular industry influence how organisations should be structured and the kinds of managerial behaviour that are considered legitimate. Social forces can act as constraints on the degree of international transfer of HRM.