Search results

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.

This study aims to analyze the effect of cognitive load and social value orientation on managers’ preferences when they face with two types of restructuring choices in financially distressed firms: the first belonging to the family of organizational restructuring (massive layoffs) and the second to the family of financial restructuring (debt increases).

The authors investigate experimentally the impact of managers’ cognitive load and social value orientation on the decision to restructure leveraged buyout (LBO) firms in financial distress by using either massive layoffs or debt increases.

By investigating the impact of managers’ cognitive load and social value orientation on the restructuring decision of an LBO firm in financial distress, the research reveals that, on average, cognitively loaded managers prefer massive layoffs over increased debt levels. The massive layoffs seemingly provide a relatively easier way to avoid conflict with influential, residual claimants. In contrast, social value–oriented managers actively avoid massive layoffs and prefer to increase debt.

These results imply that the performance mechanisms emphasized to improve agency relations, for example, in LBOs, have their own limitations during periods of financial distress. This study shows that one of these limits is related to cognitive distortions and personality traits.

In this research, the originality lies in understanding how managers’ internal factors affect their restructuring decision-making, in the case of LBO firms in financial distress.

This paper aims to review, systematize and map the extant literature on private equity (PE) and study the underlying research agenda for investment selection and value creation in portfolio firms of PE investors. The PE investment process entails the preinvestment stage, where PE investors screen the target firms, and the postinvestment stage, where PE investors monitor the funded firms. With the motive to understand both stages, this review consolidates the findings of existing literature.

This research adopts a systematic literature review approach to study the underlying themes in PE investment literature. To adequately profile the key research areas, the authors have adopted citation classics in addition to keyword search and drawn the most significant papers in this field of research based on citation metrics.

The review presents a heterogeneous set of themes by encapsulating the relevant PE literature and identifies significant and emergent themes within the broad research area of investment and performance. The foundational themes found are selection determinants for PE investments, value creation in PE investments and selection vs value-adding effect of PE investors. While the emergent themes are the relative performance of PE investments; sources of value creation; skill, luck and social capital in PE; and resource dependency vis-à-vis PE. Each theme or subtheme chalks out the underlying research agendas for future researchers.

To build an understanding of the selection determinants and value creation, this review addresses the need to synthesize and align the PE literature concerning pre and post investment stages. PE is a fertile research area that is systematically captured in this review by identifying themes, subthemes and avenues for future research.

The purpose of this paper is to give an updated overview over the development of employee-ownership in Italy, France, Spain including Mondragon, the UK and the US with relatively many employee-owned firms. How have the barriers for employee-ownership been overcome in these countries?

The overview is based on updated descriptions of the development of employee-ownership included in this special issue. The analysis follows the structure of overcoming five barriers: the organization problem; the problem of entry and exit of employee-owners; the startup and takeover problem; the capital- and the risk problem.

Italy, France and Spain have overcome the barriers by specific legislation for worker cooperatives, this includes rules for entry and exit of employee members. Cooperative support organizations play an important role for monitoring and managing the startup problem and for access to capital. The Mondragon model includes individual ownership elements and a group structure of cooperatives. The EOT and ESOP models are well suited for employee takeovers, financing are eased by tax advantages and they are all-employee schemes. While the EOT has no individual risks, the ESOP model has the possibility for capital gains for employees but also the risk of losing these gains.

Comprehensive and updated overview of the development in employee-ownership in the five countries to identify successful formats of employee-ownership for implementation in countries with few employee-owned firms.

Facing increased asset prices and growing competition, private equity firms needed to innovate their established business model and shift from focusing on financial engineering to creating operating value. Yet, the authors understand little about how private equity firms increase the value of companies in their portfolios. This paper aims to shed light on organizational strategies, activities and governance principles that private equity firms use to create value.

This investigation combines several qualitative research approaches. Using in-depth interviews with executives in 35 private equity firms, the authors define industry-specific design principles for value creation using a Gioia methodology. They then use the Eisenhardt methodology to make in-depth case comparisons among sample firms.

Private equity firms employ one of four strategies – labeled “Infiltrator,” “Consultant,” “Organizer” or “Investor” – to create value in portfolio companies, each with a different organizational structure, level of cooperation between investor and portfolio firm and specific configuration of design elements.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first to focus on private equity value creation strategies from an organizational perspective. To their knowledge, no other publication has tapped this deeply into the interface between the private equity firm and the portfolio company to define the exact approach taken by the firm. This study contributes to the emerging discussion around the nonfinancial inputs to value creation. In addition, this qualitative research design is underrepresented in private equity research.

Sustainable supply chain management (SSCM), driven by the downstream buyers' power, transfers sustainability responsibilities to the upstream supplier. In contrast to the heavily-focused buyers' perspective in the literature, the authors investigate how this buyer-driven SSCM influences suppliers' performance, using the measure of stock market reaction.

Grounded by the resource dependence theory (RDT), the authors empirically analyze the power effect on suppliers. Event study methodology and regression analysis are used, based on a sample of 1977 paired supplier observations from 1990 to 2016.

The result suggests that although a negative stock market reaction for suppliers in SSCM exists, the effect is less negative at a high level of buyer and supplier dependence. For the investigation of the “consolidated SSCM initiative,” where buyers acquire exogenous power by collaboratively managing SSCM with their peers, the authors uncover that the negative impact of this consolidated SSCM initiative can be mitigated by the high interdependence that generates relational norms in the dyads.

The authors focus on dyadic relationships. Future research can use the study's findings to study the SSCM diffusion to lower-tier suppliers.

This paper has good managerial implications for both suppliers and buyers. The authors propose dependence-based strategies for supplier managers to reduce uncertainty in SSCM. Moreover, buyer managers can use the study's findings to strengthen suppliers' commitment.

The novelty of examining the suppliers' perspective contributes to exploring the supply chain impact of SSCM. The authors extend RDT and show that high dependence is not necessarily detrimental to suppliers in this buyer-driven SSCM context. The interesting finding of interdependence in the context of the consolidated SSCM initiative brings new insights that relational norms constrain the leverage of power in the dyads and are beneficial to the power-disadvantageous suppliers.

This study aims to explore the evolutionary trajectory of American corporations and their governance over the past few centuries, using a multidisciplinary investigative approach. The research focuses on the American business landscape because it has played a pivotal role in shaping the field of corporate governance theory and practice.

The author thoroughly investigates archival records, legal documents, academic publications, reputable databases and pertinent literature to unearth valuable insights into the key events that have influenced the evolutionary path of American corporations and their governance throughout history.

Delving into the evolutionary journey of American corporations and their governance reveals a multifaceted narrative, enhancing our comprehension of the impact of the external socio-economic environment, and the effectiveness and limitations of established corporate governance paradigms in addressing such transformations. This introspection establishes the groundwork for ongoing discussions concerning how corporate governance should adapt to meet the evolving needs and expectations of stakeholders and society as a whole, with a specific focus on the pivotal role that boardrooms could play in this regard.

The insights gained from this analysis offer practitioners a foundational resource to understand corporate governance in a complex business landscape. Armed with this understanding, practitioners can better align governance strategies with both historical context and contemporary requirements.

The research has significant social implications in the sense that history highlights the importance of the society in influencing corporate governance practices. It specifically emphasizes the need for the board of directors to consider both shareholder value and social responsibility, while also fostering public trust and confidence.

Many corporate governance concepts are often used with limited understanding of their initial intent, resulting in their unquestioned adoption. In this paper, the author offers a contextual exploration of historical events that have contributed to the development of these diverse corporate perspectives. To the best of the author’s knowledge, there are exceedingly few, if any, papers that present comparably insightful and multidisciplinary insights into the evolutionary path of corporations and their governance, especially within a dynamic and influential market like that of the USA.

This study aims to extend the research in the field of external investments in family firms. It contributes to the literature by analyzing the drivers of the family firm owner-managers selling a minority stake to a strategic investor. This type of external investment might be of great interest to family firms because the family firm owner-managers can secure control over the firm and preserve socioemotional wealth while simultaneously generating additional financing and gaining strategic and managerial know-how. Likewise, minority investments in family firms might also be of high interest to strategic investors, thus enabling close collaborations (e.g. in R&D, purchasing and sales) with minor equity investments.

This study tests the hypotheses using a vignette study leveraging 327 observations from family firm owner-managers.

Based on the socioemotional wealth perspective, this study hypothesizes that the degree of family prominence, the degree of employee orientation and pure family management influence the willingness to sell. In addition, this study hypothesizes that the moderating effect of a below-average financial performance weakens the abovementioned direct effects. This study finds support for most hypotheses.

This study extends the research in the field of external investments in family firms. It contributes to the literature by analyzing the drivers of the family firm owner-managers selling a minority stake to a strategic investor.

This chapter focuses on critical thinking as a new, powerful, and specialized tool and technique for understanding and analyzing the subtle operations of the free enterprise capitalist market system and its ethics and morality. Everything in the world of consumers and market enterprise systems are determined by our supply–demand system that in turn are determined by our presumed limitless production–distribution and consumption (LDPC) systems. From a critical thinking viewpoint, we study the free enterprise capitalist system (FECS) as a dynamic, interconnected organic system and not as a discrete or compartmentalized body of disaggregate parts. Systems thinking with critical thinking calls for a shift of our mindset from seeing just parts to seeing the whole reality in its structured dynamic unity; both mandate that we see ourselves as active participators or partners of FECS and not as mere cogs in its wheels or as mere factors of its production processes. Critical thinking seeks to identify the “structures” that underlie complex situations in FECS with those that bring about high- versus low-leveraged changes in various versions of capitalism. Specifically, this chapter applies critical thinking to FECS as defined by its founder, Adam Smith, in 1776 to its fundamental and structural assumptions, and as supported or critiqued by serious scholars such as Karl Marx, Maynard Keynes, C. K. Prahalad and Allen Hammond (inclusive capitalism), John Mackey and Rajendra Sisodia (conscious capitalism), and others.

Exploiting novel measures of climate change exposure and corporate culture generated by a powerful textual analysis of earnings conference calls, this study aims to explore the effect of firm-specific climate change exposure on corporate innovation through the lens of corporate culture.

The authors apply the standard regression analysis as well as a variety of sophisticated techniques, namely, propensity score matching, entropy balancing and an instrumental-variable analysis with multiple alternative instruments.

The authors find that more exposure to climate change risk results in more innovation, as indicated by a significantly stronger culture of innovation. The findings are consistent with the notion that firms more exposed to climate change risk are pressed to be more innovative to adapt to the numerous changes caused by climate change. Finally, the authors also find that the effect of firm-level exposure on innovation is considerably less pronounced during uncertain times.

The authors are among the first studies to take advantage of a novel measure of firm-specific exposure to climate change and investigate how climate change exposure influences an innovative culture. Since climate change is a timely issue, the findings offer important implication to several stakeholders, such as shareholders, executives and investors in general.