Authors: Heather Connolly (Grenoble Ecole de Management); Miguel Martinez Lucio (Work and Equalities Institute, University of Manchester); Stefania Marino (Work and Equalities Institute, University of Manchester); Holly Smith (Work and Equalities Institute, University of Manchester).
Presenter: Heather Connolly
Abstract:
This paper explores the intersection between industrial relations (IR) and equality regimes, examining how comparative labour relations debates contribute to understanding the emergence and transformation of equality at work. Our analysis highlights how regulatory contexts shape equality strategies and tensions across different industrial relations systems and how economic, social, and political dimensions influence these processes.
The first part of the paper provides an overview of IR systems' evolution, focusing on economic and regulatory structures, welfare state interventions, and the role of the state in shaping industrial relations and equality initiatives. Debates on institutional determinism, economic convergence, and path dependency are revisited to illustrate how structural factors have historically framed equality at work (Kerr & Siegal; Teague, BJIR). The role of comparative institutional analysis and pluralism (Hall & Soskice; Whitley) and welfare state models (Esping-Andersen; Rubery et al.) are discussed as key determinants.
The second part of the paper shifts focus to emerging debates on change, contingency, and temporality, arguing for a more nuanced understanding of how equality evolves within industrial relations frameworks. We explore three key dimensions. First, in terms of temporal factors, we explore the role of time in shaping events and opportunities for change, considering opportunity structures and strategic windows for equality-related transformations (Gregory & Milner, 2009; Bache & Reardon, 2016). Second, in relation to framing and cross-referencing, we explore how regulatory and activist struggles influence each other across contexts and periods, revealing interconnections between equality initiatives (Heery & Conley, 2007; Barranco & Molina, 2021). Third, concerning memory and recollection, we explore the significance of historical precedents, institutional memory, and past struggles in shaping contemporary equality politics (O'Reilly on gender activism; Whittier on feminist networks; Virdee on local state interventions).
Through these dimensions, we show how equality at work cannot be understood solely through structuralist approaches; rather, the analysis must incorporate agency, political contestation, and shifting ideational contexts (Hyman, 2000; Connolly et al., 2019; Morgan & Hauptmeier, 2021). By integrating perspectives on actors, regulatory spaces, and ideologies, our analysis draws on contributions from comparative industrial relations (Hancher & Moran; MacKenzie & Martinez Lucio; Inversi et al.), political economy (Baccaro & Howell, 2011), and social movement theory (Scott on problem spaces).
Finally, the paper advocates for methodological approaches that foreground ethnographic, qualitative, and slow research to capture the complexities of equality transformation within industrial relations (Connolly & Almond). Building on the work of Locke & Thelen (1995) and Marino et al. on migration, it underscores the need for in-depth, contextualised studies to understand the fluid and contingent nature of equality politics over time. In doing so, it offers a framework for analysing equality at work through a comparative and temporally-sensitive industrial relations lens.