Draft Report

 

EFES BOARD

EXPERTS SEMINAR

PARIS 8 – 9 December 2000

 

 

 

 

 

ORGANIZING THE INTERNATIONAL EXCHANGES

OF INFORMATION

ON EMPLOYEE OWNERSHIP AND PARTICIPATION

 

 

 

 

 

PREPARATORY EXPERTS SEMINAR FOR THE

 

THIRD EUROPEAN MEETING OF EMPLOYEE SHAREOWNERSHIP

(The Hague 26-27-28 April 2001)

 

 

 


Report

 

EFES BOARD

EXPERTS SEMINAR, PARIS 8 – 9 December 2000

1. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................. 3

Programme.............................................................................................................................. 3

Background.............................................................................................................................. 3

EFES.....................................................................................................................................3

2001 Work programme............................................................................................................3

European Commission’s initiatives........................................................................................... 3

Participants.............................................................................................................................. 4

Objectives and expected outcome of the seminar......................................................................... 5

2. Presentations......................................................................................................................... 5

NCEO - National Center for Employee Ownership (USA), Ryan Weeden......................................... 5

GEO - Global Equity Organization, Ryan Weeden......................................................................... 6

COG - Capital Ownership Group, John LOGUE and Deborah Groban OLSON.................................. 7

IAFP - International Association for Financial Participation, David Hildebrandt and Raymond Allouf.... 8

3. Defining working themes groups............................................................................................ 9

Theme 1 : International exchanges of Information on EO................................................................ 9

Theme 2 : International cooperation involving EFES....................................................................... 9

Theme 3 : Other important topics................................................................................................. 9

Priority themes......................................................................................................................... 10

4. Working out themes.............................................................................................................. 10

1. Defining audiences................................................................................................................ 10

2. Research + best practices..................................................................................................... 11

3. Legislation............................................................................................................................ 12

4. Cooperation between information providers............................................................................... 13

5. Action planning...................................................................................................................... 14

1. What EFES should do next year.............................................................................................. 14

2. Content of the next third european meeting................................................................................ 15

6. Closing.................................................................................................................................... 15

 


 

1. Introduction

Programme

(See the detailed programme in appendix 1).

Friday 8 December :

1. Introduction

2. Presentations

3. Defining working themes groups

Saturday 9 December :

4. Working out themes

5. Action planning

 

DAY 1: Friday, 8 December 2000

Background

EFES

Marc Mathieu introduced the seminar, as Secretary General of EFES, by recalling the history of the European Federation of Employee Share Ownership. The Federation all started in 1998 with the organization of the First European Meeting of Employee Shareholders in May 98. Many discussions took place and a conflict already arose : did we want to be an open organization or an organization with very specific objectives and limited target groups?.

A choice was made for openness : EFES is to promote EO and gather all people interested in promoting EO in Europe, as an umbrella organization.

EFES is a meeting place, a place for dialogue.

2001 Work programme

This seminar is the first stage of a one-year work programme which consists in: organizing the international exchanges of information on employee ownership and participation. This work programme includes the Third European Meeting of Employee Share Ownership in April 2001. It is co-financed by the European Commission.

When organizing international exchanges of information, particularly the legislation and practices, our aim is to stimulate the development of employee ownership through new legislation and best practices.

A particular attention will be given to the social partners : trade unions as well as employers.

The one-year programme was designed on the basis of the European Action Programme of the European workshop of 30 April 1999 which considered the international exchanges of information as a key priority.

We’ll organize these international exchanges particularly by means of creating a large internet portal offering access to information databases and links with corresponding sites in various European countries and throughout the world, as well as with all those persons concerned.

Exchanging information on legislation and best practices :

1. Is the best way to promote EO

2. Is a way to add value to our organization.

Organizing these exchanges of information is also a means to boost EFES by promoting services. A lot of people call us to ask for information.

European Commission’s initiatives

The Commission is planning to make a Third Communication on financial participation and an action plan:

This action plan will have 2 pillars :

1. International exchanges of information

2. Experiments and pilot projects.

In the next few weeks, the Commission will publish the PEPPER III Report. This report has mainly been written by Erik Poutsma for the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions. The draft report has been available on EFES website for a long time.

Participants

This seminar convenes the main actors at international level, who are playing a role in the organization of international exchanges of information.

- Ryan WEEDEN : NCEO (National Center for Employee Ownership - USA) and GEO (Global Equity Organization)

- John LOGUE and Deborah OLSON : COG (Capital Ownership Group)

- David HILDEBRANDT and Raymond ALLOUF: IAFP (International Association for Financial Participation).

Some people could not be present today :

- Virginie PEROTIN of the International Labour Office just fell ill and could not come.

- Erik POUTSMA is also part of EFES : he could not come for planning reasons. His message is included in the file of participants; Erik POUTSMA is the author of the PEPPER II Report.

- Also the European Commission could not be represented here but it provides funding for this seminar.

- The European Foundation for the improvement of living and working conditions is also an important actor and will be represented at the Third European Meeting in The Hague.

Amongst the actors to convince are trade unions and social partners. In EFES programme 2001, the involvement of trade unions is essential: for example, Mauro BOSSOLA (UNI) and Giulia BARBUCCI, for the CGIL (the larger trade union in Europe) are present in this seminar. Stephen Mc CARTHY, linked to the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, proposes to coordinate on EFES behalf a project to begin a process of developing best practices and models for employee owners in Europe (see document).

 

The seminar was facilitated by Ilona EROS, Hungary.

 

List of participants:

INVITED EXPERTS

1.       USA : Ryan WEEDEN, NCEO / GEO

2.       USA : John LOGUE, COG

3.       USA: David HILDEBRANDT, representative of the IAFP

4.       FRANCE: Raymond ALLOUF, representative of the IAFP

5.       CZECH REPUBLIC : Libor LUKASEK, Czech Government

6.       UNITED KINGDOM: Emma CHESTERMAN, JOL

7.       POLAND: Mrs TOMASZEWSKA, UWP

EFES EXPERTS

8.       BelgiUM: Pierre VANRIJKEL

9.       DENMARK: Erik MAALOE

10.   DENMARK: Gorm WINTHER

11.   FRANCE: Serge CIMMATI

12.   FRANCE: Raymond GUILLAUME

13.   FRANCE : Patrick GUIOL

14.   HUNGARY : Janos LUKACS

15.   ItalY : Giulia BARBUCCI

16.   ItalY :  Mauro BOSSOLA

17.   NETHERLANDS : Henk KOOL

18.   POLAND : Jacek LIPINSKI

19.   POLAND : Krzysztof LUDWINIAK

20.   Portugal : Armenio SIMOES MATIAS

21.   SLOVENIA : Bozidar LEDNIK

22.   SLOVENIA : Gojko STANIC

23.   FINLAND: Erkki HELANIEMI

24.   UNITED KINGDOM : David ERDAL

25.   UNITED KINGDOM : David WHEATCROFT

26.   USA : Deborah Groban OLSON

27.   EUROPE : Marc MATHIEU

28.   EUROPE : Laurence WATTIER

29.   EUROPE: Myriam BIOT

30.   HUNGARY: Ilona EROS

 

Hosting

The seminar was hosted by LINEDATA SERVICES. This French company is number 1 in Europe in data-processing services for employee share ownership.

Yves Stucki, Michael de Verteuil and Gérald Daniel made a presentation on Linedata’s activities, with 3 main areas:érard Daniel, presented the company and the contribution it makes to EO.

Linedata has 400 employees. It is a services company in 3 main areas: credit finance, assets management, managing employee savings plans and employee share ownership plans.

80% of the employees of Linedata Services are employee shareholders. They control the company.

Objectives and expected outcome of the seminar

1. The next Third European Meeting of Employee Share Ownership should be conceptually prepared.

2. Have a shared picture about the present situation for international exchanges of information : players, projects, needs.

3. First stage for the internet site : concept, contents, etc…

2. Presentations

1. NCEO, Ryan Weeden

2. GEO, Ryan Weeden

3. COG, John Logue + Deborah Olson

4. IAFP, David Hildebrandt + Raymond Allouf

NCEO – National Center for Employee Ownership (USA), Ryan Weeden

First, Corey Rosen, the Director of NCEO sends his regrets for not being present. Ryan is responsible for NCEO’s international equity compensation database project.

What the NCEO does.

NCEO draws all of its income from conference, seminars, membership fees and sometimes grants to do research. Most come from corporate sponsors. NCEO tends to avoid foundations and public money. It tends to do its research in a time limit of 8 to 10 months. Public money can take the same time just to get the money!?

At international level, NCEO has links with specific interest groups and for some work.

And there is the international equity compensation database project.

International Equity Compensation Database project

(See the detailed presentation of the database project in appendix 2).

There are other forms of EO that are not ESOP related. The database project (DB) is based on the belief that EO is more likely to take the form of non-ESOP plans. ESOP had a limited appeal across the world. So NCEO is focusing on non-ESOP EO world.

NCEO realised that simply there is no information available for companies when they want to know whether it’s worth to introduce EO plans in their overseas plants.

So the DB should help US companies abroad to find out  :

- what the legislation is

- the cultural background

- etc

The target groups are the consultants and employers, not the employee owners or trade unions.

Generally speaking the target group of NCEO’s DB is the multinational company. It can be a small company with only a few employees in different countries. They will need this DB to check whether it is appropriate to extend their plans overseas.

A big multinational company spent over 1 million dollar just to communicate about the plans (not even to implement them). These large multinational companies are not the target group of the DB : they do not need it.

The contributors to the database will be service providers (consultants).

The idea is that you could find in the database comparable information about each country, in the same format.

Why is it a need for this while there already is so much information available on the internet?

The answer to that is that even though Inland Revenue might have interesting information for UK, or Fondact for France, if people want more information on other countries than the UK, for example Spain; they will not find it in the same format.

This DB project is a very expensive and difficult task : not only to launch it but also to keep it updated. It is not worth to develop it if it is not updated. NCEO has been working on that for about 18 months.

About 12 countries have contributed now. NCEO does the editorial work. It is hoped that the first five countries will be on line at the end of February 2001.

Website address : http://www.nceo.org/Library/around the world.html

Under the library section, you have also legislation of Canada, Hungary, Corea, and some of the French rules.

GEO – Global Equity Organization, Ryan Weeden

(See leaflet in appendix 3).

Ryan has 2 jobs :

1. NCEO

-          to develop stock options in the US

-          head of database project

2. GEO : Executive Director

 

GEO has asked Ryan to come on Board 6 months ago and he wanted to work with the 2 organizations. The only relation between the 2 is him really.

GEO members are not involved in ESOPs.

GEO has members in 22 countries. The board is actually made of service providers, mainly in the US.

The organization was established with a mandate than 1 country could not have more than 20% in the board of directors. Now 5 or 6 members out of 12 are from the US. But this will change. It is a new organization so it is difficult to match these linkages.

The DB would be distributed and marketed through GEO membership. So the DB project has that instant audience. Also GEO members will feed information into this DB.

Sources of funding and resources

-          Annual fees

-          Annual conference (this year in the Hague)

-          Sponsoring

GEO has an original aspect : it has chapters throughout the world, for example in Hong Honk, Japan; in the UK. These chapters have been very successful. For example in the London chapter there was a meeting of 25 people talking about accounting rules in Equity plans.

The concept behind GEO and EFES have the same goal: to create more attractive, better working mechanism to develop EO in companies. But, Ryan said, we are climbing the other side of the mountain.

Both NCEO and GEO come to this table with a co-operative spirit.

Questions & answers

Question : Can you explain the difference between the 2 organizations : NCEO and GEO

Answer : GEO is an organization of consultants, practitioners working in the field. It is a forum for people to share information on this type of EO.

NCEO : to provide reliable and affordable information in the companies. NCEO has 45 members and 1 or 2 at international level. But it is not a membership organization. NCEO does not have that same community like the ESOP association have. EFES has probably more members here than the NCEO.

The common think is objectivity, which allows to have access to all information.

Question :

1. Budget

2. Best practices : how do you identify?

Answer :

1. GEO : corporate sponsors and membership fees.

The NCEO is one of the better founded organization in the world. NCEO does not rely on a single concept of EO so it has different sources.

The GEO is different : no publications for example. It has about 20.000 potential members. If 10% of these are actual members, the GEO can live and develop.

Q: Do you join GEO as an individual or company?

A: As an individual..

Q: Languages of the DB ?

A: English with automatic translation of pages into different languages.

Q: How can EFES cooperate into this DB :

A: I think that this information in the DB can be shared. But I don’t think it will be important to have that information for employed shareholders. It is important info for employers but here shareholders are more interested on how it works for them that how to manage these plans.

I am not sure that having 1 organization linking them together would be interesting : Would 1 organization of employers be interested in working together with employees?

Q: What about workers having access to that information.?

A: It is not the same information for these different interest groups.

Deborah Olson (she is the Chair of NCEO, and member of the Board of EFES): In many instances, the issue of the DB is what kind of access for the DB ; you can have different conditions for access to the DB; for instance, the European umbrella organizations or trade unions could have an access for their members. Ex : EFES would have access to the technical info, but every of its members might not be interested. Umbrella organization need the higher level of data.

Q: Are you paying the people for their contribution?

A: Consultants agree to provide that information for free.

COG – Capital Ownership Group, John LOGUE and Deborah Groban OLSON

Deborah Olson:

COG is an international network. (See leaflet for presentation in appendix 4.)

It receives funding from the Ford Foundation for an on-line Forum.

The management is shared. John Logue provides the Ford Foundation perspective. Deborah and John work from different offices.

There are discussion groups on the website, for example :

-          The homestead council discussion

-          Privatisation

+ other discussions.

The outcome is a book “Ownership for all” which gathers the papers from the site. It is in English, Spanish, French and Chinese. There is no funding for translation and automatic translation is not satisfactory and can sometimes make things worse.

15.000 files can be accessed in the library. Deborah urges everyone to make their documents available on the library.

In the Homestead discussion, COG is planning to have discussion with government, and all actors.

Anecdotes on how COG have helped people to find their way.

COG has now received 2 more years of funding from the Ford foundation. It wants to develop its network and relations, and many links to other websites and other organizations.

In the next 2 years, there will be 2 conferences

1. About strategic planning

2. An international EO conference with different type of organizations which are concerned with globalisation. Maybe it could be a partnership with EFES.

 

John Logue : About COG web site. The website must be as easily accessible as possible. The links are designed to send directly to all organization’s homepage, for example, links to EFES website.

The library lists the authors list per alphabetical order.

address : http://cog.kent.edu.

IAFP – International Association for Financial Participation, David Hildebrandt and Raymond Allouf

(See leaflet in appendix 5).

Raymond Allouf:

IAFP produced an information directory and organized an international conference in Berlin in November 2000. IAFP is a non profit organization which was created by a French banker who wanted it to be international. The constitution was registered by international lawyer and its headquarter is in Switzerland. The founding members are Fondact in France, Proshare in the UK, the profit sharing association in the US, and some others.

Raymond and David regularly visit the members to know what their expectations are.

IAFP website includes :

-          Presentation

-          Press releases, presentation of the association;

-          Members with links to their websites.

David Hildebrandt:

The international association is intended to be an association of associations : it is an umbrella of associations.

We believe that people who have financial participation really believe in their companies. We think that the best practices are not just in the multinational companies. Some smaller and local companies could have good practices to share with others. Our goal in the US is to extend participation. Our challenge is to extend their participation.

We are ready and willing to cooperate with EFES.

Questions & answers

Gojko Stanic:

First I want to talk about Slovenia and present two initiatives :

1. We are able to make our own TV emissions global. These emissions will be transmitted globally. We can share that and the costs are not high. We can start very quickly. I propose that in the budget of EFES such an initiative could have a room too.

2. What can we do with our knowledge to fasten the development in Central and Eastern European Countries?

We have developed a financial holding and development company : the name is Prophetes. It will create a network of companies. Anybody who is interested to join this initiative as partner is invited to contact Gojko Stanic.

Question: Financing structures of COG and IAFP

COG : in the beginning, the Ohio EO Center gave $ 100.000 for 18 month and then there was $300.000 for the next 2 years from the Ford foundation. COG is looking for match money for the international conference in 2002. It is talking with EFES about the possibility of match funding from the EU. Another possible source are private sponsors for creating links and advertising on the web.

IAFP : there is practically no membership fee. Activities are made possible thanks to the money the founders put in the banks. This money is used as a front payment. For example : the conference in Berlin.

Q: role of Deborah and John in COG – how is COG organised?

COG : John works for the Ohio Employee Ownership Centre. Deborah had a paid position in her law practice. The Kent State University host the COG. There is an executive committee which is responsible for overseeing the Ford’s grant (see leaflet) and also a board and new people in the executive.

Q: if the French Federation develops a web site in French, would there be a link and a translation in COG?

A : a problem of COG is that there is no funding for translation. Deborah proposes to set up a small international group on this translation issue.

Q: Is there any way a moderator can supervise the quality level of the discussion in COG?

A: No, COG tries to involve activists, employee owners, to extend discussions to people who are doing something new. It would like to do a fund such as the Ford fund for quality papers.

Deborah would like to find a way to create competition between different think thanks in the world, where academics and trade unionists could participate.

 

3. Defining working themes groups

Participants were divided in 4 working groups.

They first defined what are the most important topics to be discussed in, as following:

Theme 1 : international exchange of EO

Theme 2 : international cooperation involving EFES

Theme 3 : other important themes.

 

Each group made a list of subjects under each theme, prioritised subjects and reported to the plenary:

Theme 1 : international exchanges of information on EO

Group 1

1. Cooperation amongst providers

2. User-friendly organization and access and translation of info exchanges

3. Information content, quality, independence and finance

 

Group 2

Legislation around the world

Best practices

Research : participative workplace culture, work performance, social effects, attitudes.

 

Group 3

- What forms of EO do we have? Information o, different forms of EO from co-operatives to stock options plans and presenting the philosophy behind each form and outcomes, results and consequences

- Discussing content : list of organizations, newsletters, calendar of events

- Target groups and objectives of information and what are the existing initiatives for each target group?

 

Group 4

- Why? Practices in different countries, legislation, perspectives of development of EO

- For whom? For EFES affiliated organizations and other EFES members, and any interested individual or organization, trade unions and other social partners

- How? Language question, internet, meetings, lists of companies, training, chat systems et newsroom,…

Theme 2 : international cooperation involving EFES

Group 1

Role of EFES : promoting EO relations between labour, management, governments and EU

 

Group 2

Why and with whom?

 

Group 3

- EFES defining itself in relation to other organizations promoting EO

- EFES defining its major tasks for itself : choose recommendable forms and promote them at EU level

 

Group 4

Role of EFES

Partnerships of EFES

Identifying partners

How to cooperate : who does what, how, on what basis?

Theme 3 : other important topics

Group 1

Defining audiences for info-sorting appropriate contents

 

Group 2

Subgroups within EFES such as CEECs

Group 3

Financing the exchanges of info

How to disseminate that information at EU level?

Each participant received 3 points to distribute between the different themes. The themes could then be classified and prioritised as following:

Priority themes are:

1. Defining audiences/target groups for info-sorting appropriate content + languages

2. Research + best practices

3. Legislation

4. Cooperation between information providers

 

DAY 2:  Saturday, 9 December 2000

The morning session was divided in 2 parts :

1. Working groups : continuation

Four working groups, along the 4 priority themes defined on Friday. :

1. Defining audiences/target groups for info-sorting appropriate content + languages

2. Research + best practices

3. Legislation

4. Cooperation between information providers

2. Brainstorming on 3 topics :

1. Organizing the exchanges of information

2. What EFES should do next year?

3. Content of the next Third European Meeting

4. Working out themes

Four working groups were organised

Each working group had to work out the following questions :

-          Why important?

-          What contribution to EO?

-          Who benefit, when?

-          What resources, when?

-          Other important issues?

 

Working groups

1. Defining audiences/target groups for info-sorting appropriate contents + languages : John, David W.,  Armenio, Emma, Patrick

2. Research + best practices : David E., David H., Raymond, Erik, Gojko, Mauro, Gorm, Pierre

3. Legislation : Kris, Giulia, Bozo,  Serge, Patrick

4. Cooperation between information providers : Deborah, Janos, Laurence, David H., Henk

1. Working group 1: Defining audiences

Defining audiences and target groups for info-sorting appropriate contents + languages :

John, David W., Armenio, Emma, Patrick

Themes = audiences and languages.

- Why important?

To inform trade unions.

To answer the questions of any natural questions or any company

The main goal is to spread the information to the larger possible public.

The web site must not look like an elitist one.

Languages : at least 3 languages, with an objective of having the web site in all European languages.

A distinction was made between the browsing system of the web site and the content on the other hand. The browsing could be quickly translated in 3 languages + the original languages, that is 4.

And one of the main objective would have the European Commission to deal with the translation of these documents (for instance, the Hungarian Federation made a Hungarian translation of PEPPER II Report; the EC should do this in all European languages).

- What contribution does this make for EO?

1. Information on EO

2. Influence public opinion

3. This will make the lobbying easier

4. This will also help harmonisation of legislation

This will lead to a user friendly site. We do not aim at the manager but the man of the street, the basic employee of the company : if an employee can use the web site easily, he could give that address to his colleagues and will use that source as the reliable one.

It will also be good to have a forum and a chatroom on the site.

- Who benefit, when?

- Employee owners

- The general public

- National associations which makes part of EFES

- Society in general as we consider that EO is a positive thing for society as a whole

- Social Europe (one of the subjects of the Nice Summit and see the demonstrations there)

When :

-          As soon as it works

-          Step by step approach

-          Depends on EU funding

- What resources, when?

-          EU funding

-          Partners : each partner should bring a translation of its texts

-          A company (for example Testelec, a company that Patrick knows)

-     all volunteers ready to help

Comments and questions

On languages :

Translations are very expensive. How to find enough funding for it?

There were different ideas :

- It was suggested to translate everything into English.

- If there is a good project which includes translations in 2 languages to 4 languages, the Commission might agree to provide funding.

- Another suggestion was about having links on the website with automatic translation systems. Most systems are bad, but Systran is good (it is not enough though, and texts must be re-read and corrected).

- EFES could set up a foundation to launch that.

2. Working group 2: Research + best practices [LW1] 

David E., David H., Raymond, Erik, Gojko, Mauro, Gorm, Pierre

The consequences of EO was the point where working group 2 came back over and over again:

- health;

- ways of managing in participatory companies.

Why important?

Useful tool to promote EO

To make EFES attractive

How does it contribute?

It convinces people :

-          managers

-          politicians

-          employees, with or without shares

-          trade unions

-          students

-          consumers…

Who benefits?

How to make sure that the research is understood?

Unions

Local government etc.

Consumers

Minority shareholders

Resources

Main task for EFES = make it all understandable

1. In the short term :

Start with shaping existing research, to be presented effectively to each constituency (cf target groups)

To stimulate research : to act as a network of researchers so that they could link together and approach the EU for funding. EFES could act as a centre, a mode of communication for researchers.

2. In the medium term:

Stimulate research : EU and universities

3. In the long term :

When we have a lot of funds we could create a research unit.

EFES role is not to do research but rather to shape, interpret, publicise.

Questions and comments

Existing research :

A lot of research exist, including about management participation. Managers which come with these methods have an economical objective, but there might also be side effects. Amongst other things, there are side effects in daily life. It goes as far as what type of people you invite for dinner.

Results of existing research in this field show the interest of participation.

An inventory of existing research should be made. For example, there is a EU funded project with a Italian trade union working with a Finnish trade union on comparing practices (Mauro is working in this project).

The French Federation set up the “Indice de l’Actionnariat Salarié” (IAS) which is an employee ownership stock index grouping 23 French companies with personnel having at least 3 % of the capital of the company. These companies have a 3 to 5% yearly performance more than other companies. There is a strong correlation between EO and enterprise performance.

Research as a tool for lobbying

If one focuses research on the political questions, it becomes a powerful tool for lobby.

It can answer questions that decision makers would make on

- performance

- bank practices.

A lot is based on belief rather than knowledge. If we base our legislative work on knowledge, it will develop faster. We must convince the decision makers and make them decide to change the legislation, not just in the interest of the companies, but also for the general public. For example, in a company with participation, there are less health problems than in countries without participation. And health is very expensive.

In France there are technical difficulties to make that link with between employee health and costs of social security. Maybe it is feasible in other countries. In France, it had to be done through the mutual societies.

Research and comparative studies on best practices have been done in Slovenia.

In Poland, institutes make a research each year on the financial standing of the companies; there are institutions that are constantly producing reports on the positive aspects of EO. There was a change in the law, which limited possibilities of creating EO, including in the privatisation process.

Some research have highlighted situation where the effects of EO have been negative. Because of these opinions, as far as research is concerned and the library, it will be difficult to do it without a group with a budget which will start to show what are the good models and attempt to create a European model of best practice.

3. Working group 3: Legislation

Kris, Giulia, Bozo, Serge, Patrick[LW2] 

How to go to models that can be considered as a European model for EO legislation.

There are 2 main differences :

1. Continental laws

2. Anglo-Saxon model

Even, within a same country, there are differences between techniques and models.

EFES should build a model which would then be recommended to the members. It is a multi-annual project and a long process, but EFES should attempt to start that process.

Steps in that process :

1. Create a library of legislation which exist in the different countries; each member should send to Brussels the legislation which is in force and also the projects for new legislation.

Contact service providers to get what they have in their library. The first attempt for such a library was done by NCEO and resulted into a book. This is a descriptive approach. This will lead to a comparative work between each piece of legislation.

2. Draft a 5 pages memorandum, so that it can be presented at the 3d European Meeting. Kris agrees to volunteer to draft that paper.

3. A working group will be set up to discuss a text.

To draft a final text needs a budget : it would be necessary to hire a professional lawyer.

A thesis for a European model of Employee Ownership, maybe 2 models, should be proposed : the continental model on the one hand, and the Anglo-Saxon on the other.

The document which would come out of it will be a lobbying tool at European and also national level.

If the EU accepted that as working paper, it would be a good argument back home to convince national authorities.

Comments and questions

Ideas about subsidiarity and national identities and culture :

- This dream of creating one or 2 models of legislation is like to adhere to different churches.

Then there is the principle of subsidiarity : Europe is not doing anything which can be done merely at national level. There is one issue, which is the tax issue. This will take years to be sorted out.

But it is useful to collect legislation. In Fondact there is a working party dealing with that, called Juris Fondact (data base of French EO legislation).

Harmonisation in the taxation will be very difficult. People do not want discrimination between the different countries.

- The models are guidelines : each country should be left to develop its own framework within these guidelines. It would also be useful for countries starting from scratch.

- If there is a summary of the 10 best practices in each country, there is a good starting point for lobbying at EU level.

- EFES should try to list what are the available forums, which could be used.

- EFES database should include all the laws that are dealing with these problematic, which could be used by professionals in this field.

- EFES first needs a library, so that the basic information is available in one place, in its headquarters in Brussels.

The reviews and summaries such as those produced by the NCEO and GEO are useful, but it is the legal texts themselves which must directly be accessible.

4. Working group 4: cooperation between information providers

Deborah, Janos, Laurence, David H., Henk

1. Set rules

Avoid competition

Avoid hidden agendas

No back thoughts

Avoid events at the same time (e.g. GEO and EFES next meetings in April 2001 come right on top of NCEO’s annual meeting.)

Actors : IAFP, GEO, NCEO, EFES

2.Competition for money

For example EU money : if you get money, there is a risk that EFES will get less money.

3. Define ourselves for ourselves and for others

Avoid confusion at the EU level in perception. We must make sure we do not duplicate each other.

Some groups define others à honouring self definition !!!

4. Divide up the world:  based on best capacity and strongest constituency defined.

Find out : (determine and communicate) goals and constituency of the group

5. Know what the motivation is :

-          Political : changing legislation

-          Social : changing attitude

-          Profit making

-          NGO social policy in the future

6. There are 3 pillars :

-          employees

-          shareholders

-          management

7. Name : define the perception

-          EFES : European employee share ownership

-          IAFP : financial participation in general (umbrella)

-          NCEO : entrepreneurial information

 

8. Financial participation:

- Profit sharing / cash schemes

- EO

9. Constituencies :

Government

Management

Labour

Comments

IAFP = association of companies: management and government

EFES and COG : labour and employee participation and NGOs interested in that type of issues.

It should be possible to bring all these parties to get sponsors to get the research done.

Competition for EU funding = fiction : this year there were not enough good projects for the money available. The Commission will never give funding just to one organization in any case. So this available money will be shared in any case between different projects. So let’s have complementary projects and communicate about each other’s projects.

There should be a code of good practice for cooperation.

 

5. Action planning

Brainstorming on 2 topics :

1. What EFES should do next year

2. Content of the Third European Meeting

There have already been a lot of ideas on organizing the international exchanges of information, so it was decided to focus on EFES programme and the content of the Third European Meeting.

1. What EFES should do next year

Group 1

-          Work out cooperation between organization

-          Raise more funds

-          Building up an information exchange system

-          Building strong links with labour and organize workers (non organized)

-          Make a list of companies who will welcome visitors

-          Seeking a role for EFES as to provide assistance in setting up EO plans

Group 2

-          Collect information on different legal forms of legislation in the different countries

-          Budget

-          Meeting with Belgian Government during the Belgian Presidency of EU

-          Bring a European initiative through the Belgian Presidency of EU

-          Cooperation with GEO/NCEO

-          Newsletters

-          Increase membership

Group 3

Researchers come together and apply for funding on the subjects of :

-  technological developments

- a television programme on internet

- networking

Group 4

-          Do a communication work towards the press

-          Develop the web site

-          Lobbying the EU

-          Organize the Brussels secretariat

-          Develop new projects with the EU

-          List experts, specialists which could take part in research and find funding for it

-          Recruit new members

2. Content of the next THIRD EUROPEAN MEETING

Group 1

-          Both broad and parallel sessions

-          Outlining and explaining the different kinds of financial participation

-          Consequences of the tax systems

-          Define research objectives

-          Present research results : comparative, examples, case studies; economic, sociological, organizational.

Group 2

-          Attitude to EO

-          Principles for legislation

-          Short country presentation

-          Authoritative research

-          To focus on practical solutions

-          Public statement at the end

-          Presence of labour/government

-          International/ world wide attendance from associations

-          Presentations

-          Harmonize 3d conference with NCEO

Group 3

-          Privatization in CEE countries

-          Web site development

-          Memorandum about legislation (to be sent to EU institutions)

-          Roundtable of labour and political parties

-          Panel on best practices

Group 4

What position do we have towards the GEO which is organizing its conference just before ours.

 

6. Closing

Each says 1 sentence about this meeting :

Henk :  I did not introduce myself yet as I arrived yesterday. I am Henk Kool. I am member of the board of EFES and also observing member in the board of IAFP. I am happy that this tension was immediately relieved when I came here and felt the co-operative, friendly atmosphere in this meeting, and I think this is a good start for fruitful co-operation between our organizations.

David E.: Very useful to hear form other organizations about their projects. It is central to us to generate a process and communicate information effectively.

Patrick: I think we have made some good points and there is always of course some frustrations, but I think we are on the right track

Serge: I was impressed by all the ideas that were expressed.

Mauro: Thank you to Marc Mathieu

Raymond G.: The means we have are not as important as our ideas. It is a pity but we could try little by little to raise money to put our ideas into practice.

Giulia: I am satisfied by the discussion; we have put a lot of topics on the table. Now we have to develop the content.

Gorm: I haven’t been with you since the meeting in Budapest in February 1999 and it was in the middle of a crisis. I am happy to see that now EFES is gathering strength. Welcome in Greenland for a conference!

Bozo: Encouraging, supportive, co-operative.

Kris: We are all people of ideas and we can produce a lot of ideas but with our limited resources we should focus on 1 or 2 things.

Gojko: I am disappointed. You have a tiny steps approach. Europe needs big steps if it wants to create employment. But I can use what I have heard here to make big steps in Slovenia

Deborah: A work of inspiration. There has been a lot of progress. This is the first EFES board meeting that I have been able to attend. COG is trying to link with all employee ownership organization, please write your name on this list.

Pierre: I think this meeting has been very useful and I hope we will continue like this in the future.

Myriam: The meeting was very good

Emma: I was surprised by the enthusiasm and the good spirit there is here. I think EFES is a good platform.

Erkki: I am happy I could join you for dinner yesterday and then today. We need to be sufficiently organised, sufficiently financed, but this is a good basis.

Erik: I would like to express my respect and admiration for Marc who, in spite of all the difficulties, has brought EFES were it is now.

(applause)

Armenio: This meeting was very helpful because we can make some steps to reach our goals.

David W.: One of the focuses EFES should have is to communicate with the labour. This meeting gives the enthusiasm to start again.

John: Thank you for inviting me. It is nice to see old friends and make new friends.

Ilona: I wish you many good results.

Marc

I have a last word and this is to thank Ilona : her work has been very useful. Thank you.

 

(Everyone applause)


 [LW1]

 [LW2]