Purpose – The “dual” model of vocational training is well established in many German companies, enabling them to train young talent to meet their existing and future demand for skilled labour. However, Germany’s system is unusual: most other countries organise training in an entirely different way. Over the past few decades, the accelerating pace of globalisation has prompted many foreign companies to set up in Germany, but the academic literature does not consider this group specifically, so it is unclear how subsidiaries of foreign companies meet their requirements for skilled labour. Training cultures are very different in their respective home countries, making this an interesting and beneficial issue to investigate. This study therefore explores how foreign companies with different training cultures manage recruitment and training when they set up in Germany with its dominant dual vocational training system. Design/methodology/approach – On the basis of 77 qualitative interviews, the study describes the recruitment and training practices of Chinese, French, Japanese, UK and US companies and the factors influencing their adaptation to operating within a German environment. Findings – This study finds that companies frequently adapt their training activities to local German practices. This is also the case where it is not possible to make an exact comparison of the extent to which training is provided and whether training behaviours really are identical with those of comparable German companies. It is clear that if training activities are offered to young future employees in the form of initial training, this training is likely to rely on the German dual apprenticeship or dual study programme model. The ultimate decision on training activities is dominated by influences from the German operating environment at the cost of country-of-origin influences. Against the backdrop of statutory requirements, dual apprenticeships and dual study programmes are often seen as the only solution. Research limitations/implications – One limitation of this study is that the sample is too small to enable wide-ranging conclusions to be drawn, for example, in relation to the differences between individual countries of origin. A wider sample and comparison with German companies could enable more a detailed analysis of the differences between company practices and produce a more differentiated picture of the influences from Germany and from the respective home country. Practical implications – Nevertheless, the findings of this study help to improve understanding of corporate strategy – and they have potential uses at a practical level. For example, chambers of industry and commerce could target and support foreign companies. Meanwhile, organisations promoting business could draw the attention of foreign companies newly setting up in Germany to the provision of dual apprenticeships. Social implications – Although the study has not identified clear differences between different countries of origin in how decisions are made concerning training, discussion and negotiations with the parent company in a range of countries of origin clearly reveal the influences and associated issues and concerns related to the respective country of origin. Originality/value – By contrast with Pudelko and Harzing’s (2007) study, this study suggests that training therefore needs to rely substantially on local adaptation. Also, in opposition to studies on German companies operating outside Germany, comprehensive training is not imported and training outside the German system is provided in only a few individual cases. In other studies on different HR practices, there is a greater adaptation of strategy to the two environments in solutions that sometimes include hybrid elements. This study does not find hybrid solutions of this kind. However, this does not mean that there is no influence from the home country. A closer scrutiny of the influences on this decision-making shows, indeed, that although the majority use the dual system of vocational training as their training model, subsidiaries do not “act like German companies” in their internal decision-making and that some home-country influences are evident in intensive negotiation processes with the parent company. © 2025 Matthias Pilz and Lena Finken
Author Keywords
Index Keywords
