Search

In this essay, we develop a new argument about how the concept of embeddedness and a sensemaking approach can be used to theorise small firms' regulatory responses, especially to employment regulation. We want to move beyond the simplistic and narrow conceptualisations of resistant action in small firms in response to regulation. We contribute to theorising on small firms' regulatory responses by developing an embedded account of social action that takes us beyond the dichotomy of individualised (micro) and institutional accounts (macro) explanations of firm behaviour. Our argument emphasises the situatedness of small firm behaviour shaped by, and in turn shaping, the contexts in which they are embedded. We go beyond stereotypes to give a nuanced account of situated action. In conclusion, we briefly outline how our ideas can be operationalised to explain small firms' diverse responses to regulation.

Smaller firms are often viewed as resistant to regulation due to cost burdens. However, evidence indicates that for some compliance is beneficial under certain conditions. Drawing on data on attitudes and responses of smaller firm owner-managers to changes in Australia’s harmonising work health and safety context we report on smaller firms’ responses to these changes. Despite uncertainty due to incomplete harmonisation, many owner-managers viewed safety compliance as important and necessary to do business. Those with negative views still linked positive safety performance to business outcomes. We categorise smaller firms’ responses and in this sample most are Positive Responders. We suggest ways forward for policy-makers to support smaller firms in complying with occupational health and safety regulation.

In recent times significant change has occurred to the Australian health and safety regulatory context. In this paper we consider the potential response of smaller firms in general, and ethnic owned and/or operated smaller firms in particular. We draw on literature examining smaller firms' responses to regulation and apply this to what little we know about smaller ethnic firms in Australia in the context of the regulatory change. We highlight the challenges to owner managers and what could be done to engage and support smaller ethnic firms to realise the opportunities resulting from this regulatory change.

The formality and informality of HRM practices in small firms Rowena Barrett and Susan Mayson Introduction The nature of human resource management in small firms is understood to be characterized by ad hoc and idiosyncratic practices. The liability of smallness (Heneman and Berkley, 1999) and resource poverty (Welsh and White, 1981) presents unique challenges to managing human resources in small firms. The inability to achieve economies of scale can mean that implementing formalized HRM practices is costly in terms of time and money for small firms (Sels et al., 2006a; 2006b). These, combined with small firm owner–managers’ lack of strategic capabilities and awareness (Hannon and Atherton, 1998) and a lack of managerial resources and expertise in HRM (Cardon and Stevens, 2004) can lead to informal and ad hoc HRM practices. For some this state of affairs is interpreted as problematic as the normative and formalized HRM practices in the areas of recruitment, selection, appraisal, training and rewards are not present (see Marlow, 2006 and Taylor, 2006 for a critique). However, a more nuanced analysis of the small firm and its practices in their context can tell a different story (Barrett and Rainnie, 2002; Harney and Dundon, 2006). In this chapter we contribute to our understanding of small firm management practices by investigating a series of questions in relation to HRM in small firms.