16.1. Introduction

This chapter recalls the characteristics and specifics of the German apprenticeship model. It presents eight conditions and criteria that the work environment should fulfill to make this model work. We use examples from empirical studies carried out in the United States, Mexico and China to illustrate the actions that large German companies are taking in their foreign subsidiaries to transfer their model to other national environments.

The German dual vocational training system, which can be considered one of the pillars of the German human resources management model, has often been described in France as a successful model to be emulated. In terms of professional integration, the German vocational training system is a success that has few equivalents in Europe. However, this model seems difficult to export as it exists in a different national context and only seems to be able to function in a specific institutional and cultural environment. Recent studies focus on the conditions necessary for the successful transfer of the German apprenticeship model to other countries, particularly to subsidiaries of German multinationals. Empirical studies have been conducted in China, the United States and Mexico by collaborators of the ITB (Institut für Technik und Bildung) of the University of Bremen and other German researchers. First, we will present the contemporary characteristics and challenges of German apprenticeships from a French perspective. In a second part, we will then present the main conditions of the transfer by illustrating them with the results of studies.

16.2. Main features of dual German learning

The German dual learning model (in school and the workplace) is often presented as a factor of economic (for matching qualifications developed to business needs) and social (for its ability to integrate young people into the labor market) competitiveness.

Table 16.1 summarizes the main features of the German apprenticeship model.

Traditionally, there have been four major differences between apprenticeships in Germany and France (Davoine et al. 2000), and these differences have not changed much in recent decades (Zettelmeier 2016).

The company plays a greater role in Germany, since it has the role of trainer in the same way as the vocational school (Berufsschule). Part of the training is done in the workplace where the apprentice learns how to complete tasks and develops skills that are defined by a trade reference framework (Berufsbild). The role of the company is reflected in a share of business investment in training that is greater in Germany than in France, as well as in a greater power in the design and in the validation of training programs, such as the awarding of certificates by company representatives (chambers of commerce and industry or chambers of trade) and not by the State as in France. This greater role of companies in Germany makes it possible to ensure the professional orientation of the content of training, as well as a reactive adaptation to the needs of the labor market (a reactivity that can be problematic in periods of recession as a large number of companies then reduce their number of apprenticeship places).

In Germany, vocational training involves more than half of the population aged 17–24 and seems to promote their professional integration. The dual system allows for practical vocational training that quickly integrates technological changes.

The majority of apprentices in Germany learn the trades of employees or skilled workers in industrial or service companies, SMEs or large companies, and less often in very small craft enterprises.

Apprenticeship in Germany is traditionally independent of the school system. There is a fundamental separation between vocational training and general education. The consequence of this separation is a less hierarchical and often complementary juxtaposition of the different forms of qualification (professional and general). It is not uncommon in Germany for Abiturienten (baccalaureate or A-level holders) to seek to acquire a professional qualification during three additional years (i.e. to learn a trade in a company), before beginning their university studies. In some professional fields, such as Bankkaufmann or Versicherungskaufmann (qualified employee for banks and insurance companies), Abitur/baccalaureate holders are even in the majority in following a course that officially requires a lower school-level certificate.

The dual system has also recently faced new challenges, particularly Germany’s demographic decline, which is reducing the number of young people entering the labor market, and, above all, the growing interest of young people in higher education, which is perceived as more rewarding (Lasserre 2014). As in France, dual learning programs have also been implemented in higher education, mainly within the framework of specific institutions: the Berufsakademien, known as Duale Hochschulen or Universities of Cooperative Education. These institutions were launched in Baden-Württemberg in the 1970s and then spread, and were emulated in other regions. In 2012, they trained around 65,000 students per year under work–study contracts with companies. This growing success shows that German companies and institutions have been able to adapt their training offer to the changing needs of society and the economy, although at the same time traditional initial training continues to attract young people with more than 500,000 “traditional” apprenticeship contracts signed in the same year 2012 (Lasserre 2014).

16.3. Conditions for the success of the dual German training model

Research on the transfer of the German learning model to foreign subsidiaries of large groups shows that transferring the model abroad is not so simple, and that the dual learning model requires several conditions to work. Gonon (2014) identifies seven conditions and success criteria. We present these by illustrating examples of what German companies have tried to develop in Mexico, the United States and China, to facilitate the implementation of the German model in different national institutional and cultural environments.

The criteria for the success of a dual vocational training model are as follows:

• – The “training” company: it must have the capacity, freedom of action and willingness to train apprentices. This is a heavy investment, and company managers who are not familiar with this type of investment are often hesitant. However, the transfer of standardized industrial processes implies that the skills and level of autonomy of the workforce must also be standardized. Gessler (2014) and Gessler and Peters (2017) give the example of an American Mercedes Benz plant. The subsidiary only became a training site because of the willingness of the new German CEO to implement quality structures, similar to the German model, in order to transfer the industrial processes of the parent company.
• – The “training” school: it must find a partner school capable of completing the apprenticeship program in terms of generic knowledge, and this school must be sufficiently legitimate for its diplomas to be recognized on the local labor market. One of the problems for German companies is that vocational schools abroad are often undervalued within the labor market, with the phenomenon even more pronounced in emerging economies. In the example of Mercedes Benz’s American plant (Gessler and Peters 2017), the company has negotiated a contractual partnership with a senior state college to develop specific curricula in parallel with existing curricula and those leading to qualifications. Similar partnerships can be observed in Mexico (Wiemann and Fuchs 2018), with the cooperation of Audi and UTC (Technical University of Puebla), for example, or in China (Freund and Gessler 2017), where German companies have joined forces with a local vocational school to build a specific curriculum in a cooperative way.
• – The formal regulatory framework: in Germany, an apprenticeship involves a contract between the apprentice and the company, which is not yet an employment contract. Abroad, it will be necessary to define the contractual and legal framework of the training relationship within companies. Original regulatory solutions can be found, for example in the United States, by using temporary employment agencies, which may be local subsidiaries of the same German groups (Gessler and Peters 2017).
• – Codified and formalized knowledge: in the German environment the joint committees specify a list of knowledge and skills that apprentice should acquire on the job. However, there also is the knowledge acquired within the framework of the vocational school that is supervised by an educational institution. In the case of Mexico (Wiemann and Fuchs 2018), a group of German companies, with the assistance of the German-Mexican Chamber of Commerce and the German Embassy, have managed to negotiate with the Mexican Ministry the recognition of technical training curricula, developed in partnership with local schools, as national official curricula and diplomas.
• – Governance and the cooperative approach between business and schools: in Germany, there is cooperation between state educational institutions, companies and their representatives (especially the chambers of commerce and crafts that issue certificates). It is the companies that decide to accept the apprentices, who will then enroll in the vocational school. Despite significant differences in the culture and profiles of German trainers, at school and in the workplace, there is a culture of cooperation based on a history of institutionalized practices (Davoine et al. 2000). In Mexico and the United States, German automotive companies have provided specialized training for future vocational school teachers (even sending them to Germany to show them teachers’ roles in the German environment, in the case of Audi) in order to foster this cooperation (Gessler and Peters 2017; Wiemann and Fuchs 2018).
• – The relationship to professional practice: professional culture in Germany is based on a tradition of professions that are recognized and formalized through standards. For example, the jobs of maintenance technicians or mechatronics technicians required to manufacture cars are standardized through 42-month courses. Again, in an American environment where factories recruit mechanics trained in repair shops, new 27 and 45-month courses had to be created, including industrial knowledge modules (Gessler and Peters 2017). In China, the low level of qualification among manual workers is leading German companies to develop their own local competence standards (Deitmer et al. 2013; Freund and Gessler 2017).
• – The meritocratic principle of workers’ careers: initial training through an apprenticeship is not a “dead-end” but must allow the acquisition of professional skills that can be developed further during a career. This requires a retention and development policy, aimed at making the first employment contracts, and the rest of the career, more attractive. In China (Freund and Gessler 2017), retention of staff after vocational training is a major problem that German companies are trying to address by developing personal mentoring programs for apprentices as well as financial incentives.
• – Gessler and Peters (2017) add an eighth criterion: funding. In the German system, the costs of school training are covered by the State, and the costs of company training – as well as partial remuneration of the apprentice – are covered by the company. In other education systems, schools may be charged and businesses may not remunerate apprentices in training. Investing in three- to four-year training can discourage future apprentices. We will see German companies in the United States contributing to the financing of school training or deciding to award salaries above local standards to attract the best candidates.

16.4. Conclusion

It is clear from these examples that the conditions for the success of the German VET model are not obvious in, often very different national environments. This does not mean that the transfer of the model is impossible, but it often requires actions to be taken to adapt practices or even transform local institutional environments. The examples presented here illustrate the innovative practices of German companies in China, the United States and Mexico. The use of the criteria is a first step in identifying potential difficulties in dual learning in a specific institutional environment. In the case of France, for example, we still observe the traditional difficulties (Zettelmeier 2016) concerning the criteria of the regulatory framework, the cooperative culture and, above all, the meritocratic principle of a career. But as far as apprenticeship is concerned, France has also evolved in recent decades and has probably not finished evolving.