IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/woemps/v32y2018i1p114-132.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Contemporary Employer Interest Representation in the United Kingdom

Author

Listed:
  • Leon Gooberman

    (Cardiff University, UK)

  • Marco Hauptmeier

    (Cardiff University, UK)

  • Edmund Heery

    (Cardiff University, UK)

Abstract

Focusing on employers’ organizations in the United Kingdom, this article contributes to the literature on employer interest representation by advancing three interrelated arguments, which reflect how the methods, structure and interests of employer representation have evolved. First, the primary method of collective interest representation has shifted from collective bargaining, nowadays only pursued by a minority of employers’ organizations, to political representation, now the most frequent form of collective interest representation. Second, the structure of employer interest representation has evolved and is fragmented between a small number of large, general employers’ organizations, a large majority of sectoral employers’ organizations, regional interest representation in the devolved nations, which has become more important, and a new type of employer body, the employer forum, which focuses on corporate social responsibility. Third, the shift in collective interest representation is complemented by a broadening of individual interest representation, with employers’ organizations having developed a wide range of services.

Suggested Citation

  • Leon Gooberman & Marco Hauptmeier & Edmund Heery, 2018. "Contemporary Employer Interest Representation in the United Kingdom," Work, Employment & Society, British Sociological Association, vol. 32(1), pages 114-132, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:woemps:v:32:y:2018:i:1:p:114-132
    DOI: 10.1177/0950017017701074
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0950017017701074
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0950017017701074?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Peter Sheldon & Raoul Nacamulli & Francesco Paoletti & David E. Morgan, 2016. "Employer Association Responses to the Effects of Bargaining Decentralization in Australia and Italy: Seeking Explanations from Organizational Theory," British Journal of Industrial Relations, London School of Economics, vol. 54(1), pages 160-191, March.
    2. Schmitter, Philippe C. & Streeck, Wolfgang, 1999. "The organization of business interests: Studying the associative action of business in advanced industrial societies," MPIfG Discussion Paper 99/1, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
    3. Richard Hyman, 1997. "The Future of Employee Representation," British Journal of Industrial Relations, London School of Economics, vol. 35(3), pages 309-336, September.
    4. Martin,Cathie Jo & Swank,Duane, 2012. "The Political Construction of Business Interests," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107018662.
    5. Martin,Cathie Jo & Swank,Duane, 2012. "The Political Construction of Business Interests," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107603646.
    6. Paul Smith & Gary Morton, 2006. "Nine Years of New Labour: Neoliberalism and Workers’ Rights," British Journal of Industrial Relations, London School of Economics, vol. 44(3), pages 401-420, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ole Henning Sørensen & Virginia Doellgast & Anders Bojesen, 2015. "Intermediary cooperative associations and the institutionalization of participative work practices: A case study in the Danish public sector," Economic and Industrial Democracy, Department of Economic History, Uppsala University, Sweden, vol. 36(4), pages 701-725, November.
    2. Raess, Damian & Wagner, Patrick, 2022. "South to north investment linkages and decent work in Brazil," Papers 1382, World Trade Institute.
    3. Caleb Goods & Bradon Ellem, 2023. "Employer associations: Climate change, power and politics," Economic and Industrial Democracy, Department of Economic History, Uppsala University, Sweden, vol. 44(2), pages 481-503, May.
    4. Cathie Jo Martin, 2022. "FICTION WORKS: Cultural ideas and the design of industrial relations systems in Britain and Denmark," Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(1), pages 50-67, January.
    5. Jonas Meckling, 2015. "Oppose, Support, or Hedge? Distributional Effects, Regulatory Pressure, and Business Strategy in Environmental Politics," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 15(2), pages 19-37, May.
    6. Michaël Zemmour, 2012. "Tax competition and the move from insurance to assistance," Documents de travail du Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne 12090r, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1), Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne, revised Mar 2013.
    7. Judith Shuqin Zhu & Chris Nyland, 2017. "Chinese employer associations, institutional complementarity and countervailing power," Work, Employment & Society, British Sociological Association, vol. 31(2), pages 284-301, April.
    8. Thomas Paster & Dennie Oude Nijhuis & Maximilian Kiecker, 2020. "To Extend or Not to Extend: Explaining the Divergent Use of Statutory Bargaining Extensions in the Netherlands and Germany," British Journal of Industrial Relations, London School of Economics, vol. 58(3), pages 532-557, September.
    9. Alexander Hertel-Fernandez & William Kimball & Thomas Kochan, 2022. "What Forms of Representation Do American Workers Want? Implications for Theory, Policy, and Practice," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 75(2), pages 267-294, March.
    10. Christian Lyhne Ibsen & Lisa Sezer & Virginia Doellgast, 2023. "Coordination versus organization: Diverging logics of firm cooperation in Denmark and Sweden," British Journal of Industrial Relations, London School of Economics, vol. 61(3), pages 526-549, September.
    11. Matthew Lockwood, 2022. "Policy feedback and institutional context in energy transitions," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 55(3), pages 487-507, September.
    12. Stefan Thewissen & Olaf Vliet & Chen Wang, 2018. "Taking the Sector Seriously: Data, Developments, and Drivers of Intrasectoral Earnings Inequality," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 138(3), pages 1023-1048, August.
    13. Duane Swank, 2015. "The Political Foundations of Redistribution in Post-industrial Democracies," LIS Working papers 653, LIS Cross-National Data Center in Luxembourg.
    14. Kinderman, Daniel, 2014. "Challenging varieties of capitalism's account of business interests: The new social market initiative and German employers' quest for liberalization, 2000-2014," MPIfG Discussion Paper 14/16, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
    15. Linsi, Lukas Andreas & Hopkin, Jonathan & Jaupart, Pascal, 2019. "Exporting the winner-take-all economy: micro-level evidence on the impact of US investors on executive pay in the United Kingdom," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 102217, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    16. Horen Voskeritsian & Andreas Kornelakis & Panos Kapotas & Michail Veliziotis, 2022. "United we stand? Marketization, institutional change and employers’ associations in crisis," Economic and Industrial Democracy, Department of Economic History, Uppsala University, Sweden, vol. 43(2), pages 685-704, May.
    17. Huo, Jingjing, 2015. "How Nations Innovate: The Political Economy of Technological Innovation in Affluent Capitalist Economies," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780198735847, Decembrie.
    18. Castater Eric Graig, 2015. "Unionization and the partisan effect on income inequality," Business and Politics, De Gruyter, vol. 17(1), pages 1-40, April.
    19. Rothstein, Sidney A., 2020. "Toward a discursive approach to growth models: Social blocs in the politics of digital transformation," MPIfG Discussion Paper 20/8, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
    20. Rothstein, Sidney A., 2019. "Innovation and precarity: Workplace discourse in twenty-first century capitalism," MPIfG Discussion Paper 19/8, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:woemps:v:32:y:2018:i:1:p:114-132. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.britsoc.co.uk/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.