6HURM009W.2 COMPARATIVE INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT
ASSIGNMENT 1
COMPARATIVE RESEARCH REPORT
50% of module mark
2000 words – there is no plus-or-minus 10% for this assignment
Deadline: 4th March 2024 at 13:00 hrs.
Feedback: 26th March 2024 at 13:00 hrs.
1. The Comparative Research Report is designed to give the students an opportunity to
demonstrate their ability to systematically examine cross-national similarities and
differences in key politico-economic institutions, as well as their comprehension of key
concepts and frameworks of analysis.
2. Students are required to produce a 2000-word factual report on two-three key differences
between national systems of corporate governance OR employment relations OR Human
Resource Management across two countries of your choice out of the US, UK, Germany,
OR Japan.
3. Coursework type: Report – This means you are required to produce a factual account. This
is not an essay.
4. Compulsory reading and online resources: In researching and writing your report you are
expected to demonstrate knowledge and understanding of the moduleÂ’s compulsory reading
for the topic chosen. This includes but is not limited to the three sets of reading and resources
included herein. For the latest version, always check Blackboard.
Please note that observing this requirement does not mean that every essential source and/or
resource ought to be used in all reports but that all essential sources and/or resources ought
to be considered in conducting your research before conducting your own. Students are invited
to conduct their own research only after exhausting the essential material.
Topic 1: Comparative Corporate Governance
Textbook
Haxhi, I. (2023) Comparative Corporate Governance, Chapter 6, in Sorge, A., Noorderhaven, N.
and Koen, C. I. (eds) Comparative International Management, Third Edition, Abingdon: Routledge.
Reading
Chang, H. J. (2009) Thing 2: Companies should not be run in the interest of their owners, in
23 Things They Don’t Tell You About Capitalism.
Clarke, T. (2016) The continuing diversity of corporate governance: Theories of convergence
and variety. Ephemera, 16(I): 19-52.
Deakin, S. and Konzelmann, S.J. (2003) After ENRON: An Age of Enlightenment? Organization,
vol. 10, 3, 583-587.
Dore, R. (2006) Corporate Governance: From the employee-favouring firm to the
shareholder-favouring firm (pp. 71-132) in Stock Market Capitalism, Welfare Capitalism. Japan
and Germany versus the Anglo-Saxons, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fulton, L. (2020) Codetermination in Germany: A beginner’s guide, Mitbestimmungspraxis, No.
32, Hans-Böckler-Stiftung, Institut für Mitbestimmung und Unternehmensführung (I.M.U.),
Düsseldorf.
Gospel, H. and Pendleton, A. (2015) Corporate Governance and Employee Participation,
Chapter 24, in Wilkinson, A., Gollan, P., Marchington, M. and Lewin, D. (eds) The Oxford Handbook
of Participation in Organizations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kester, W. (1992) Industrial Groups as Systems of Contractual Governance, Oxford Review of
Economic Policy, 8:3.
McLean, B. and Elkind, P. (2013) The Smartest Guys in the Room, London: Penguin.
OECD (2023), OECD Corporate Governance Factbook 2023, OECD Publishing, Paris.
Websites
EuroFound https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/
OECD www.oecd.org
Worker Participation EU https://www.worker-participation.eu/
Topic 2: Comparative Employment Relations
Textbook
Saka-Helmhout, A. (2023) Managing Resources: Human Resource Management, Chapter 8,
Section 8.4.1 Pay systems, collective bargaining and co-determination, in Sorge, A.,
Noorderhaven, N. and Koen, C. I. (eds) Comparative International Management, Third Edition,
Abingdon: Routledge. (*) This is not an error – please refer to note on our textbook’s terminology.
Reading
Bamber, G., Lansbury, R., Wailes, N. and Wright, C. (2016) Introduction, Chapter 1, in Bamber,
G., Lansbury, R., Wailes, N. and Wright, C. (eds) International and Comparative Employment
Relations National Regulation Global Changes, Abingdon: Routledge.
Bamber, G., Lansbury, R., Wailes, N. and Wright, C. (2016) Conclusions: Beyond varieties of
capitalism: towards convergence and internationalisation?, Chapter 14, in Bamber, G.,
Lansbury, R., Wailes, N. and Wright, C. (eds) International and Comparative Employment Relations
National Regulation Global Changes, Abingdon: Routledge.
Budd, J. W. (2004) Achieving Decent Work by Giving Employment and Human Face. Geneva:
ILO.
Budd, J. W. (2017) Labour Relations: Striking a Balance. NY: McGraw-Hill. Chapter 1:
Introduction.
Budd, J. W. (2008) Labour Relations: Striking a Balance. NY: McGraw-Hill. Chapter 2: Labour
Unions: Good or Bad?
BUIRA (2011) WhatÂ’s the Point of Industrial Relations? A Statement by the British Universities
Industrial Relations Association.
Edwards, P. (2003) The employment relationship and the field of industrial relations. Chapter
1. Introduction, in Edwards, P. Industrial Relations Theory and Practice, London: Sage.
Frege, C. and Godard, J. (2015) Cross-variation in representation rights and governance at
work, Chapter 22, in Wilkinson, A., Gollan, P., Marchington, M. and Lewin, D. (eds) The Oxford
Handbook of Participation in Organizations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Global Rights Index (2023) The Worst Countries for Workers in 2023. ETUC.
Human Rights Watch (2000) Unfair Advantage: Workers’ Freedom of Association in the United
States under International Human Rights Standards.
Logan, J. (2004) The Fine Art of Union Busting, New Labor Forum, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 77-91.
Wailes, N. and Lansbury, R. (2015) International and Comparative Perspectives on Employee
Participation, Chapter 24, in Wilkinson, A., Gollan, P., Marchington, M. and Lewin, D. (eds) The
Oxford Handbook of Participation in Organizations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Country chapters
Katz, H. and Colvin, J. (2016) Employment relations in the United States, Chapter 3, in Bamber,
G., Lansbury, R., Wailes, N. and Wright, C. (eds) International and Comparative Employment
Relations National Regulation Global Changes, Abingdon: Routledge.
Keller, B. and Kirsch, A. (2016) Employment relations in Germany, Chapter 8, in Bamber, G.,
Lansbury, R., Wailes, N. and Wright, C. (eds) International and Comparative Employment Relations
National Regulation Global Changes, Abingdon: Routledge.
Suzuki, H. Kubo, K. and Ogura, K. (2016) Employment relations in Japan, Chapter 10, in
Bamber, G., Lansbury, R., Wailes, N. and Wright, C. (eds) International and Comparative
Employment Relations National Regulation Global Changes, Abingdon: Routledge.
Waddington, J. (2016) Employment relations in the United Kingdom, Chapter 2, in Bamber, G.,
Lansbury, R., Wailes, N. and Wright, C. (eds) International and Comparative Employment Relations
National Regulation Global Changes, Abingdon: Routledge.
Websites
EuroFound https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/
OECD www.oecd.org
Worker Participation EU https://www.worker-participation.eu/
Topic 3: Comparative Human Resource Management
Textbook
Saka-Helmhout, A. (2023) Managing Resources: Human Resource Management, Chapter 8,
Section 8.3 Employment Relations and 8.4.2 Performance-related pay, in Sorge, A.,
Noorderhaven, N. and Koen, C. I. (eds) Comparative International Management, Third Edition,
Abingdon: Routledge. (*) This is not an error – please refer to note on our textbook’s terminology.
Reading
Aguilera, R.V. and Jackson, G. (2003) The cross-national diversity of corporate governance:
Dimensions and determinants, Academy of Management Review, 28, 447–465.
Begin, J. P. (1997; 2014). Dynamic human resource
comparisons (Vol. 79). Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG
systems:
Cross-national
Brewster, C. (2007) A European perspective on HRM, European J. International Management,
Vol. 1, No. 3.
Budd, J. (2004) Achieving Decent Work by Giving Employment a Human Face. Geneva: ILO.
Dany, F. and Torchy, V. (1994) Recruitment and selection in Europe: Policies, practices and
methods. In Brewster, C. and Hegewisch, A. (eds) Policy and Practice in European Human
Resource Management. London: Routledge, 68–88.
Huo, Y. P., Huang, H.J. and Napier, N.K. (2002) Divergence or convergence: A cross-national
comparison of personnel selection practices. Human Resource Management 41(1), 31–44.
OECD Forced Labour and Trafficking of Persons.
Streeck W. (1991) On institutional conditions of diversified quality production, in: Matzner E.,
Streeck W. (Eds.) Beyond Keynesianism. The Socio-Economics of Production and Full
Employment, pp. 21–61 (Aldershot: Edward Elgar). Available soon.
Tarique, Briscoe and Schuler (2022) Comparative IHRM (Chapter 14) in Tarique, Briscoe and
Schuler (2022) International Human Resource Management, London: Routledge.
Country chapters – despite their titles, these chapters include information on HRM
Katz, H. and Colvin, J. (2016) Employment relations in the United States, Chapter 3, in Bamber,
G., Lansbury, R., Wailes, N. and Wright, C. (eds) International and Comparative Employment
Relations National Regulation Global Changes, Abingdon: Routledge.
Keller, B. and Kirsch, A. (2016) Employment relations in Germany, Chapter 8, in Bamber, G.,
Lansbury, R., Wailes, N. and Wright, C. (eds) International and Comparative Employment Relations
National Regulation Global Changes, Abingdon: Routledge.
Suzuki, H. Kubo, K. and Ogura, K. (2016) Employment relations in Japan, Chapter 10, in
Bamber, G., Lansbury, R., Wailes, N. and Wright, C. (eds) International and Comparative
Employment Relations National Regulation Global Changes, Abingdon: Routledge.
Waddington, J. (2016) Employment relations in the United Kingdom, Chapter 2, in Bamber, G.,
Lansbury, R., Wailes, N. and Wright, C. (eds) International and Comparative Employment Relations
National Regulation Global Changes, Abingdon: Routledge.
Websites
Anti-slavery international
EuroFound https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/
OECD www.oecd.org
Worker Participation EU https://www.worker-participation.eu/
(*) Important note on the textbookÂ’s terminology. Due to differences in terminology,
finding your way in either edition of the core textbook might be a little confusing so please
mind the following:
•
•
•
What we call ’employment relations’ or industrial relations’ appears under 8.4.1
Pay systems, collective bargaining and co-determination.
What we call ‘HRM’ appears under 8.3 Employment Relations
What we call ‘Work organisation’ appears under 8.2 ‘Work structure’
5. The report will be structured in 3 sections.
Introduction (~150 words)
Section 1 (~350 words), where students are required to present the topic chosen and the
features and variables selected to carry out the comparison.
Section 2 (~350 words), where students are required to present and justify their choice of
countries.
Section 3 (~1000 words), where students will produce the comparison.
Conclusion (~150 words)
6. Referencing: Compulsory – The report requires students to demonstrate knowledge and
understanding of the essential reading provided and own independent research,
evidence of which must be clearly referenced throughout. Failure to do so may
constitute plagiarism.
7. Support for the completion of this assignment will be provided on a weekly basis in
the seminars (weeks 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6)
Week
2
3
4
5
6
Date
02/02
09/02
16/02
23/02
01/03
Seminar activity that supports the completion of CW1
CW1 Report – Introduction
CW1 Report – Topic
CW1 Report – Countries
CW1 Report – Comparison/Interpretation
Final CW1 Report Tutorial
Specific Assignment Assessment Criteria
Markers will assess reports in terms of the following criteria:
1. Topic (16%): The quality of the rationale behind the reportÂ’s choice of topic, features, and
variables for comparison.
2. Countries (16%): The quality of the rationale behind the reportÂ’s choice of countries (or
other approved comparators)
3. Comparison (50%): The quality and detail of the comparison addressed including
relevance and accuracy of data, meaningful interpretation of data, etc.
4. Sources (6%): The breadth and quality of the sources employed.
5. Referencing (6%): The standard of referencing.
6. Presentation (6%): The quality of the reportÂ’s structure, writing, and presentation.
Each of the above criteria will be assessed using the usual ranges:
A. First Class Honours (70+): Excellent
B. Upper Second Class Honours (60-68): Good
C. Lower Second Class Honours (50-58): Competent
D. Third Class Honours (40-48): Satisfactory
E. Fail (30-38): Unsatisfactory
F. Bad Fail (-28): Poor
General Module Assessment Criteria
Students are expected to demonstrate knowledge and understanding of module material
including:
Knowledge and understanding of key terms, models and approaches to the study of
comparative international management
Knowledge and understanding of key similarities and differences between countries,
regions and models.
x
x
As well as an ability to:
x
Undertake basic research on comparative international management
Analyse similarities and differences in the institutional context in which management and x
organisation take place across countries, regions and models.
Explain similarities and differences in the institutional context in which management and
organisation take place across countries, regions and models.
Critically evaluate similarities and differences in the institutional context in which
management and organisation take place across countries, regions and models.
Assessment General Threshold Criteria
The descriptions below are indicative of what is needed to merit a mark at Level 6:
Percentage
80-100
Outstanding
General Criteria
An outstanding piece of work: All assessment criteria have been met at
an exceptionally high standard.
•
•
•
•
•
70-79
Excellent
Demonstrates exceptional independent thought and reflection
in relation to complex ideas and concepts.
Provides creative analysis of techniques/knowledge.
Critically analyses information sources, techniques and
approaches to analysis.
Demonstrates extensive research across a range of sources.
Communicates ideas and complexity with confidence, using
appropriate format and excellent presentation.
An excellent piece of work: All assessment criteria have been met at a
high standard.
•
•
•
•
Takes a confident approach to critical analysis/reflection across
a range of techniques/knowledge.
Shows in-depth understanding of ideas and concepts.
Demonstrates insightful/independent contextualisation and
implications of theories/practices.
Synthesises independent research across a range of
authoritative sources.
•
60-69
Good
Communicates with clarity using appropriate format and
excellent presentation
A good piece of work: All assessment criteria have been met at a good
standard.
•
•
•
•
•
Demonstrates systematic understanding across a range of
techniques/knowledge in specialised area.
Demonstrates confident analysis/reflection on key
concepts/frameworks.
Explores relationship of theories/practices within the wider
context.
Provides additional independent research across a range of
authoritative sources.
Communicates clearly, using appropriate format and with
sound presentation.
A sound piece of work: All assessment criteria have clearly been met.
50-59
Competent
•
•
•
•
40-49
FAIL
Inadequate
30-39
FAIL
Poor
FAIL: An adequate piece of work: All assessment criteria have just been
met.
• Demonstrates descriptive understanding of
techniques/knowledge.
• Provides limited evaluation of ideas and concepts.
• Undertakes minimal research within module content.
• Communicates work using appropriate format with some
weaknesses of presentation.
FAIL: An inadequate piece of work: One or more relevant assessment
criteria are not met
•
•
•
•
0-29
Demonstrates clear understanding of techniques/knowledge in
specialised area.
Demonstrates some independent synthesis and reflective
analysis across key concepts/ frameworks.
Provides evidence of research across a range of resources
provided within the module.
Communicates using appropriate format with satisfactory
presentation.
Applies techniques/knowledge with limited with some
weaknesses/omissions.
Demonstrates inadequate knowledge of key concepts and
principles.
Uses a minimal amount of relevant information from within the
module.
Communication is unclear with poor standard of presentation.
FAIL: A poor piece of work: Most of the relevant assessment criteria
area not been met.
•
Applies techniques/knowledge with significant weaknesses and
omissions.
•
•
•
Demonstrates major inaccuracies and/or misunderstandings
flaws of key concepts and principles.
Uses inadequate information sources from within the module.
Communication is unclear with poor standard of presentation.
Referencing requirements for assignments
Statements, assertions and ideas made in coursework should be supported by citing
relevant sources. Sources cited in the text should be listed at the end of the assignment in a
reference list. Any material that you read but do not cite in the report should go into a
separate bibliography. Unless explicitly stated otherwise by the module teaching team, all
referencing should be in Westminster Harvard format. If you are not sure about this, the
library provides guidance (available via the library website pages).
Difficulties in submitting assignments on time
If you have difficulties for reasons beyond your control (e.g. serious illness, family problems
etc.) that prevent you from submitting the assignment, make sure you apply to the Mitigating
Circumstances board with evidence to support your claim as soon as possible. The WBS
Registry or your personal tutor can advise on this.
Submitting your coursework – checks
Your assignment is subject to anonymous marking. Do NOT include your name, student ID
within the file name or anywhere within your submission. Having logged into Turnitin, the
system will record your details anonymously and tutors will only see your name after the
entire submission has been assessed and provisional marks have been released to all
students at the same time.
Unless indicated otherwise, coursework is submitted via Blackboard. On the Blackboard
home page for the module you will find a button on the menu called ‘Submit Coursework’.
Clicking this will take you to the submission link.
At busy times the coursework submission process may run slowly. To ensure that
your submission is not recorded as a late submission, avoid submitting very close to
the deadline.
To submit your assignment:
1. Log on to Blackboard at http://learning.westminster.ac.uk;
2. Go to the Blackboard site for this module;
3. Click on the ‘Submit Coursework’ link in the navigation menu on the left-hand side
4. Click on the link for the assignment;
5. Follow the instructions.
REMEMBER
It is a requirement that you submit your work in this way. All coursework must be
submitted by 13:00 (UK Time on the due date).
If you submit your coursework late but within 24 hours or one ‘working’ day of the
specified deadline, 10% of the overall marks available for that assessment will be
deducted as a penalty for late submission, except for work which is marked in the
range 40 – 49%, in which case the mark will be capped at the pass mark (40%).
If you submit your coursework more than 24 hours or more than one ‘working’ day
after the specified deadline you will be given a mark of zero for the work in question.
The UniversityÂ’s mitigating circumstances procedures relating to the non-submission
or late submission of coursework apply to all coursework.
If you are unclear about this, speak to your class leader or module leader.
