Search results

“The latest available cross-country data presented in the PEPPER V Report (Lowitzsch and Hashi, 2024) can be viewed by examining EFP in and of itself as an isolated subject or it can be viewed in a much wider set of contexts. Widening the lens in order to examine EFP in the context of the concentration of capital ownership and the concentration of capital income can help observers establish EFP’s span of relevance. In particular US data on capital income show that policy makers need to be aware that EFP can have an important role in narrowing the income and wealth gap for the working middle class when the concentration of capital ownership and capital income is high and when real wage growth is low.”

“Against this background, this article makes a very straightforward observation that the relevance of EFP in an economic system, in a country, and for the average employee in a country is related to the trend in the concentration of capital ownership and capital income. Interest in the idea is potentially increased or decreased by trends in real wages. Atkinson, who many consider the founder of modern wealth concentration scholarship, “focuses on the increasing share of capital incomes a source of income inequality among individuals” (Cirillo et al., 2017, p. 1). Indeed, we consider the difference between labour’s share and capital’s share to be a critically important fundamental problem of political economy. This essay asserts that when this concentration is high and real wages are flat, other things being equal, EFP may be more relevant. When the concentration of capital ownership and capital income is high, this means that ownership and income on that ownership is thinly spread in the population. When real wages are flat, this means that the rate at which fixed wages can replenish wealth is decreasing. As a result, both trends would make EFP more relevant.”

The conceptual model suggested for this article asserts that the relevance of EFP can be viewed as a function of narrowing income and wealth options for the working middle class when the concentration of capital ownership and capital income is high and when real wage growth is low. Does this relevance change across economic systems? There is no question that the future understanding of these issues requires adding metrics to the statistical methodologies of different regions and countries and adding to existing reports and analyses that focus on both the dynamics of and trends in capital income (property income in the EU) and on the EUR and USD value of EFP at the mean and at the median for different income levels of the population

This article presents – for the first time – a society-wide measure of the impact of EFP on one economy, namely, the US For further research, it makes sense to build on the comparable data available on the distribution of capital ownership and have similar research on the distribution of capital income for both the EU and the US along with measures of the EUR and USD values of EFP.

This paper offers a new perspective on the potential motivation for the adoption of employee ownership based on market power. Employee ownership may be linked to market power, either through contributing to firm growth that leads to market power or through industry leaders adopting employee ownership as part of rent sharing or a broader consolidation of market position. Both employee stock ownership plan (ESOP) coverage and product market concentration (PMC) have been increasing in the past two decades, providing a good opportunity to see if and how these are related.

The authors predict ESOP adoption and termination using multilevel regressions based on 2002–2012 firm- and industry-level data from the Census Bureau, Compustat and Form 5500 pension datasets.

The authors find that the top four firms in concentrated industries are more likely to adopt Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs), while having an ESOP does not predict entering the top four, apart from firm-level predictors. Tests indicate the first result does not reflect simple rent sharing with employees but instead appears to reflect an effort by firms to consolidate market power through the attraction and retention (or “locking in”) of industry talent. Other positive predictors of ESOPs include company size, being in a high-wage industry and having a defined benefit (DB) pension.

To better distinguish among hypotheses, it would be helpful to have firm-level data on managerial attitudes, strategies, networks and monopsony measures. Therefore, future research using such data would be highly useful and encouraged.

The paper includes implications for the potential usefulness of ESOPs in attracting and retaining talent and for the design of nuanced policy to encourage more broadly based sharing of economic rewards.

While prior research focuses on firm-level predictors of employee ownership, this study uses market concentration and other industry-level variables to predict the use of ESOPs. This study makes a unique contribution, broadening the current thinking on firm motives and environmental conditions predictive of firm ESOP adoption.

This viewpoint will present some statistical information about employee ownership in the US and interpret and analyze this information in order to address the barriers question using material from qualitative interviews that the authors have conducted over the last ten years with practitioners in the field. There have been few actual empirical studies that sort out the different barriers to employee ownership. The authors have chosen to focus on employee stock ownership plan (ESOP) in the US because this is the principal example from which people could learn from, and the high prevalence of ESOPs plays an important role in the US. This overview will present interpretations of these interviews with conceptual arguments that cannot always be supported with either overwhelming empirical studies or arguments that conclusively eliminate one or other explanation. This is an initial attempt to bring some comprehensive treatment and data to this incipient discussion. This is based on an interpretive analysis of qualitative interviews without quantification or social survey methods used for measurement. The advantage of this approach is that it lays out a completely different level of analysis of the barriers to employee ownership in the US that is “closer to the ground” and more based in the views of front-line practitioners who are actually implementing it.

Analysis and interpretation of qualitative interviews.

The list of barriers that has been identified is not exhaustive. The preliminary conclusions are that (not necessarily in this order) limitations of investment banking models, poor supportive infrastructure, complexity and cost and regulatory issues, the lack of support by political parties and social movements, the sale of companies due to financial considerations and legal complexities and lack of clarity and resistance by Federal agencies are major barriers in the US. Various sectors of Wall Street has been amenable to employee ownership with the proper government and private sector support. What is needed now is a series of quantitative surveys and qualitative interviews of retiring business owners in closely held companies and of CEOs and CFOs in stock market companies in order to gauge the barriers that they believe are blocking their own action in the employee share ownership area. The Rutgers Institute for the Study of Employee Ownership and Profit Sharing is working on such a research agenda at this time. In addition, with the future size of the US employee ownership sector at stake, a more intensive one-year interview project would make sense in order to present these different explanations to key actors and practitioners and ask them to provide evidence to prove or disprove the relevance of the different barriers.

Empirical research which can resolve which barriers are more important than others is presented, when possible; however, studies that provide metrics to compare different barriers are not available and need to be carried out.

Other countries considering employee ownership policies can learn from the US experience. US policymakers and legislators can learn from an original, recent discussion of barriers.

If employee ownership sectors are to be developed, a careful discussion of barriers is most relevant.

Original document by the authors based on original interviews.

The field of broad-based employee ownership within corporations is a specific application of the foundational topic of property ownership. It is situated at the intersection of a broad range of scholarly disciplines including economics, law, finance and management. Each discipline contributes vocabulary and distinctions describing this field. That broad spectrum of disciplinary inquiry is a strength but it also lends a “ships passing in the night” quality to discussions of employee ownership. This paper attempts to unravel the narrative diversity surrounding this topic. Four meanings of ownership are introduced. Those meanings are in turn embedded within two abstract models of the corporation; the corporation as property and the corporation as social institution.

There is no experimental design The paper presents a conceptual overview and introduces a taxonomy of four meanings and two models of ownership.

Four meanings of ownership are introduced. The meanings are ownership as compensation, investment, retirement and membership. Those meanings are in turn embedded within two abstract models of the corporation; the corporation as property and the corporation as social institution.

No hypotheses are advanced. This is not a research paper. A conceptual overview that makes use of taxonomy of meanings and models is introduced to help clarify confusions abundant in the field of employee ownership. Readers may differ with the categories of meanings and models introduced in this conceptual overview.

The ambition of the paper is to describe the various meanings and models of employee ownership presently in use in both academic and applied settings. It is not necessary or desirable to assert the primacy of a single meaning or model in order to achieve progress. The analysis provided here surfaces a range of assumptions about ownership that have heretofore been implicit in both scholarship and in practice. Making those assumptions explicit should prove useful to both scholars and practitioners of employee ownership.

The concept of employee ownership enjoys a relatively broad appeal with the public. Among the academic disciplines that have trained their lights upon it, a more mixed reception prevails. Much of the academic and policy controversy derives from confusion about the nature and structure of employee ownership. This paper attempts to address that confusion by presenting a taxonomy of meanings and models that may prove useful for future research.

This study is one of the first efforts to comprehinsively map the various meanings and models of broad-based employee ownership.

This paper aims to identify the key lessons to learn from the US employee stock ownership plan (ESOP)-model. The lessons are, broad-based employee ownership is difficult to attain and sustain if employees have to use their own money to purchase shares. The paper works better when the shares are held in trust rather than being held individually. Broad-based employee ownership improves corporate performance and employee financial security. Employees care more about how employee ownership affects the stability of their jobs and retirement than having governance rights. If laws require democratic governance there will not be widespread employee ownership. Tax incentives are critical to induce companies and their owners to share ownership.

This paper is based on results from National Center for Employee Ownership research, a review of other research in the field, and the author’s own 45 years of experience in this field.

About one-quarter of the private sector workforce in the USA participates in some kind of employee ownership plan. There are 6,700 ESOPs in the USA with 14 million participants. The ESOPs hold over $1.4 trillion in assets. About 6,000 of these plans are in non-listed companies and the companies employ about two million people. Public companies ESOPs generally own under 10% of company stock; private company ESOPs usually own at least 30% of the stock and a majority of the plans own 100% of the stock. Most of these companies have between 20 and 500 employees.

The article gives a practitioner's overview over the main reasons behind the success of the ESOP model in the USA.

The unanticipated disruption caused by the ongoing coronavirus pandemic led to the extensive use of flexible working arrangements. In such a boundaryless work environment, however there are significant concerns, especially around inclusivity and discrimination. Given the increasing concerns surrounding hybrid and remote work settings, the authors investigated whether the extent of working in substantially flexible working arrangements relates to employees’ perceived ostracism and inequality, distinguishing between working from home, in a hybrid mode or from the office. In addition, the authors theorised that in flexible working arrangements, high-quality leader relationships, such as leader–member exchange (LMX) and servant leadership are likely to reduce perceptions of ostracism and inequality. Based on a survey of 161 professionals, who worked to varying degrees in flexible working arrangements, the authors found that employees who worked extensively in a hybrid mode were less likely to report experiences of ostracism and inequality in comparison to employees who worked mainly from home or in an office. Furthermore, a moderation analysis showed that the effects of LMX and servant leadership on perceptions of ostracism and inequality were much stronger for individuals who work in hybrid working arrangements than those who work at the office or from home. This research makes an important contribution to our understanding of how different degrees of flexible working arrangements affect employees by demonstrating the role of high-quality leader relationships in reducing perceptions of ostracism and inequality at different degrees of work flexibility.

Despite being conjointly stronger in their synergies in the past, there is still a significant gap between management and organization studies and sociology. The temporal lag is also, on occasion, a substantive lag. The emergent sociological concept of emotional reflexivity has recently been used in organizational studies. The question that animates this contribution concerns the nature of this translation, reception, and extension; thus, we ask how organization studies have been using the sociological concept of emotional reflexivity? We will examine recent seminal sociological studies on emotional reflexivity to answer this inquiry and consider some organizational studies citing these. We describe the reception of sociological ideas of emotional reflexivity in management and organization studies literature. By analyzing the differences and disconnections produced within this discourse, it will be possible to understand that emotional reflexivity is rarely addressed in emotional encounters between people and other modes of being in modern organizations. We introduce narrative fiction as a method; the narrative focuses on the relationships between humans and other beings in the workplace dynamics of a vocational school. The story tells how Charlie, a deaf student, changed his life after entering the vocational school and becoming involved with different pedagogical teaching-learning strategies. Adopting two deaf dogs, which had both suffered from past unsuccessful adoption experiences, produced life-enhancing emotional reflexivity. We conclude with a research agenda scoping further directions.

This paper explores the motivating factors that lead to opportunity recognition among social entrepreneurs in India.

The study followed an exploratory, qualitative design based on thematic analysis of the interview data collected from 13 Indian social entrepreneurs.

The study identifies two aggregate factors that motivate social entrepreneurs: personal and contextual. Personal factors include life experiences, social awareness, social inclination since childhood, spiritual motives, the need for a meaningful career and entrepreneurial intention. Contextual factors included institutional voids, community development, the presence of a role model and volunteer experiences.

This study contributes to the social entrepreneurship literature by providing a model for motivating factors that lead to opportunity recognition. This study enables policymakers and social entrepreneurship educators to identify aspiring social entrepreneurs and provide target-specific support to them.

This study enables policymakers and social entrepreneurship educators to identify aspiring social entrepreneurs and provide target-specific support to them.

The study uniquely contributes to the social entrepreneurship field by offering deep qualitative insights into the motivational and opportunity recognition patterns of social entrepreneurship.