15
September 1999
EUROPEAN
ACTION PROGRAMME
FOR
EMPLOYEE OWNERSHIP AND PARTICIPATION
(PEPPER
POLICY)
As
our EUROPEAN ACTION PROGRAMME, you find herewith the “Summary and conclusions”
part of the final report of the First European Workshop for Employee
Ownership and Participation, held at the European Parliament, Brussels,
on 30 April 1999.
The
Workshop of 30th April was an important step forward
for a policy of employee share ownership and participation in Europe
:
-
the main European institutions (European Parliament, European Commission,
Council of Ministers, Economic and Social Committee) were around
the table. Their representatives were all strongly in favour of
an active and voluntary policy to promote employee ownership and
participation.
-
an action plan was drafted, including what role of national and
European organisations and institutions could play in implementing
it.
The
“Summary and Conclusions” of the Workshop are aimed to be a clear, short, and concrete document.
It basically consists in an action plan for policy developments
in employee ownership and participation.
The complete final report also includes the “Minutes”.
FIRST
EUROPEAN WORKSHOP
FOR
EMPLOYEE OWNERSHIP AND PARTICIPATION
30 April 1999 – European Parliament, Brussels
FINAL
REPORT
Summary and conclusions
Action programme
Action programme
Ways
and means
A
framework for action at European level
Obstacles
to a European policy
The
benefits of employee share ownership and participation
Outline
of good practice models
Conclusion
and follow-up
The FIRST EUROPEAN WORKSHOP
FOR EMPLOYEE OWNERSHIP AND PARTICIPATION was organised with the
support of the EUROPEAN COMMISSION, Directorate-General for Employment,
Industrial Relations and Social Affairs, and of the SOFICATRA.
07/09/99
FIRST EUROPEAN WORKSHOP
FOR EMPLOYEE OWNERSHIP AND PARTICIPATION
30 April 1999 –
European Parliament, Brussels
Summary and conclusions *
(* The complete
report on the conference is available in both French and English
from EFES.)
The
First European Workshop for Employee Ownership and Participation
was held on 30 April in the European Parliament, at the instigation
of the European Federation of Employed Shareholders. Initially planned
for 40 participants, it was a success, attracting 80. The quantity
and quality of contributions made it possible to achieve the objectives
set for the day: deciding what activities to undertake and the ways
and means to promote employee share ownership and financial participation
within the European Union.
The meeting was
endorsed by the European institutions and the social partners. In
particular, it was supported by the European Commission's Directorate-General
for Employment, Industrial Relations and Social Affairs (DGV), and was held in the European Parliament.
One of the main
speakers was Ms Elisa Maria Damiao, Member of the European Parliament,
who came to express the support of Ms Pauline Green, President of
the Group of the European Socialist Party. The European People's
Party and the European Liberal Democratic and Reformist Partywere also represented.
As Ms Odile Quintin,
Deputy Director-General of DG V, emphasised, financial participation
in general and employee share ownership in particular are complex
issues for the European institutions. They touch on the sphere of
competence not only of several Commission departments, but also
and more importantly of the Member States and social partners. Hence
the participation of Mr Manuel Hernández López, Director at DG II
(Economic and Financial Affairs), accompanied by a number of other
representatives from DG II and some from DG III (Industry),
DG VI (Agriculture) and DG XXIII (Enterprise Policy, Distributive
Trades, Tourism and Social Economy).
In the context
of the German Presidency of the Council of Ministers, Dr Peter Mozet,
of the German ministry for labour and social affairs, took part
in the workshop’s opening session, which included many German speakers
and participants.
Mr Antonello Pezzini
attended on behalf of the Economic and Social Committee of the European
Communities and its President, Ms Béatrice Rangoni Machiavelli.
Mr Wolfgang Kowalski,
for the European Trade Union Confederation, expressed his support
for financial participation and set out the conditions for its implementation,
outlining the possibility of constructive dialogue on the matter.
A working paper
prepared by the secretariat general of EFES – the "1999 EFES
draft memorandum" – was distributed to all the speakers and
participants. In particular, the document detailed the benefits
of employee share ownership and the action already undertaken by
the European institutions, and pinpointed, among the recommendations
of the Council of Ministers and European Parliament, some initiatives
to be implemented at European level:
1. A standing working party comprising representatives
of the social partners and employee shareholder associations, members
of the European Parliament, Commission experts and representatives
of the Member States.
2. A European programme endowed with the financial
resources needed to promote the pooling of information and good
practice and provide training on financial participation systems
for the social partners.
3. Organisations and legislative measures
at national level to promote employee share ownership and financial
participation.
Participants agreed
on the need to develop models of good practice in financial participation
at European level. They reviewed the benefits of employee share
ownership and discussed the factors involved in making the most
of them. These factors must be included in the models of good practice
to be developed.
They also mentioned
the obstacles to developing financial participation and a European
policy in this area. Lastly, proposals were issued on the action
required at Community level and the means to be employed.
Action programme
The aim of EFES
and the participants at this workshop is to achieve a degree of
convergence and promote good practice in Europe, both by lobbying
governments and national institutions and by working through the
Community institutions. It is neither to impose employee share ownership
nor even to harmonise the existing systems through legislation.
Professor Erik Poutsma of Nijmegen Business School kicked
off the debate by proposing a six-point programme which generated
considerable interest among participants.
1. Developing clear models of financial participation practice and pooling the
relevant information (on the British trustee system and French savings
plans scheme, for instance).
2. Defining a common overall framework for tax incentives. A solution must be found, in particular
for multinational companies.
3. Developing capital savings systems, enabling capital ownership to be shared
between workers and other holders.
4. Pooling good practice, particularly by means of information and training for workers.
5. Lifting legislative barriers. There should, of course, be a European framework to promote
financial participation and, at the same time, interaction between
the three pillars of participation. The three pillars will necessarily
reflect individual cultural environments, which will have an impact
on financial participation. Dialogue within the works councils depends
on the procedures established by each company. Obstacles can therefore
also arise inside companies. Better use must be made of financial
participation to encourage dialogue within companies.
6. Supporting the social partners’ programmes. Action at European level should essentially
aim at getting the social partners involved in these issues. The
many meetings organised by German trade unions for the year 2000
are worth mentioning in this respect.
An action programme at both European and national level can
be identified on this basis, as follows:
At
European level
Developing employee
share ownership and financial participation requires research and
analysis, pooling of information (on legislation and taxation systems,
good practice in the various countries and administrative and tax
barriers) and corporate governance.
Participants unanimously
agreed on the need to:
- Draw up models of good practice by organising exchanges and meetings,
while bearing in mind the diversity of European cultures and the
need to apply the models in a flexible manner which is consistent
with the policy in each country. Initial steps for drawing up these
models were identified.
- Define the social values that are fundamental
to EO so that it can be promoted on a common basis. This point was
stressed by a number of participants who consider that EO is not
a goal in itself, but rather a means for reaching the common objectives.
- Organise the pooling of information and good practice.
- Develop methods for measuring, evaluating
and comparing the implementation of the PEPPER report in the Member
States.
- Stimulate research by disseminating information
and results relating to completed research projects and undertaking
new ones.
- Promoting employee share ownership and participation through
training and information.
At
national level
Participants pointed
out that implementing the PEPPER report was the responsibility of
national governments and the social partners.
- Implementation of the 1992 Council recommendation and 1998
European Parliament resolution (see
the EFES memorandum)
The participants
stressed the need to take account of the January 1998 resolution
of the European Parliament and to implement the Council’s 1992 recommendation.
In the latter, the Member States proposed inter
alia to recognise the benefits of employee share ownership and
financial participation, and to provide for an appropriate legislative
framework in order for them to be introduced in good conditions.
- Establishment of national institutions
There was particular
support for the idea – already expressed in the European Parliament’s
resolution – of establishing national institutions to promote financial
participation.
- Pensions
The question of
pensions and of social welfare was raised as a general policy issue.
But it is not just a political issue; it also has macroeconomic
implications. Participation plans are an additional source of income,
but they cannot replace the current system of social welfare and
pensions, and they do not, by themselves, resolve the pensions problem.
- Promoting a share ownership and participation culture through the provision of information on
training. Particular attention was devoted to the idea of "rating
agencies", which would supply information on the performance
of companies offering participation schemes.
Ways and means
Financial resources
Action at European
level entails securing adequate financial resources.
Everyone agreed
that the Community institutions must do more. As soon as the new
Commission is up and running, it must play its part in this area.
- Use of existing
resources
Mention was made
of the European Social Fund and RTD programmes. DG V is providing
assistance for public events such as the First and Second European
Meetings of Employed Shareholders, along with smaller-scale activities
such as a meeting on financial participation by employees in multinational
companies and a survey of barriers to the introduction of participation
plans.
All existing resources
should be examined with a view to PEPPER-related projects (developing
SMEs, research, Structural Funds, CEECs, etc.).
- Development
of an appropriate financing programme
The European Parliament
called on the Commission to "implement an adequately financed
programme to promote the exchange of information and best practice,
together with training for both sides of industry in financial participation
schemes".
The European Parliament
– and in particular the Committee on Social Affairs, the Committee
on Economic Affairs and the Committee on Budgets – has its own role
to play in this area. During the budget procedure it must press
for a specific European programme endowed with its own budget, enabling
it to support the pooling of information, dissemination of good
practice and promotion of research and training to build on the
PEPPER report.
A standing framework for exchange and dialogue
- Formation of
a working party
A priority set
out in the European Parliament resolution is for the European Commission
to establish a working party comprising representatives of the social
partners and associations of employee shareholders, together with
Members of the European Parliament and Commission experts. Participants
also called for the establishment of a group of experts comparable
to the Davignon Committee, which made it possible to break the deadlock
on the European company statute.
- Creation of
a European institute
A European institute
for financial participation should be established, along the lines
of the national institutions for promoting participation and employee
share ownership. This institute will act at European level by helping
the social partners and national institutions to coordinate their
strategies and encourage governmental measures.
- Formation of
a European Parliament intergroup
The importance
of policies on employee share ownership and financial participation
should be reflected within the European Parliament by the establishment
of an ad hoc parliament intergroup.
Initiatives to be taken by the European institutions
European Parliament
Given the now
acknowledged significance of financial participation, the European
Parliament should monitor the issue on an ongoing basis. The formation
of an ad hoc parliament intergroup will be a
useful step forward. The European Parliament – and in particular
the Committee on Social Affairs, the Committee on Economic Affairs
and the Committee on Budgets – has its own role to play in budgetary
matters. During the budget procedure it must press for a specific
European programme endowed with its own budget, enabling it to support
the pooling of information, dissemination of good practice and promotion
of research and training to build on the PEPPER report. It should
also follow up, supervise and guide the action to be taken by the
Commission, in particular regarding its participation in the working
party it has called for.
European Commission
The next step
for the European Commission is now to submit a proposal for an appropriate
European financing programme for the PEPPER policy to the European
Parliament and the Council. It is also up to the Commission to take
measures for the establishment of a standing framework for sharing
information and promoting dialogue, such as the working party requested
by the European Parliament and a European institute for financial
participation.
Economic and Social Committee
An own-initiative
report will shortly be issued by the Economic and Social Committee.
A framework for action at European level
Although a policy
on worker participation is the responsibility of Member States and
the social partners, this does not mean that the European institutions
do not have an important role to play in areas such as promoting
exchanges of information, experience and good practice between the
Member States.
- The contribution of employee share ownership to the European
employment strategy
Ms Quintin reviewed
the initiatives undertaken by the Commission (see the EFES memorandum)
and added that, with regard to wider policy initiatives, employee
share ownership and financial participation had been considered
in the context of work organisation. The Commission’s document "Modernising
the organisation of work – a positive approach to change" (November
1998) identifies the role of the social partners in this field,
and mentions financial participation as an area to be investigated.
What is the link
between modernising work organisation and stimulating the expansion
of dynamic firms? The answer is the European employment strategy,
also known as "the Luxembourg process".
It is based on
four "pillars": employability, entrepreneurship, adaptability
and equal opportunities. Two of them are relevant to financial participation
and employee share ownership. Work organisation plays a crucial
role in "encouraging adaptability", and risk capital markets
are mentioned under "developing entrepreneurship".
- The fundamental role of the social partners and social dialogue
The social dialogue,
involving trade unions, employers and employee shareholders, is
crucial. Participants stressed the vital role of the social partners
in employee share ownership and participation, at both national
and European level, as regards establishing legal frameworks and
implementing participation plans within companies. The social partners
must be involved.
- Realistic goals: the harmonisation issue
Given the current
policy environment – enormous disparities between Member States
and a lack of Community competence in areas (mainly social affairs
and taxation) relevant to employee share ownership –, the EU's decision-making
procedures and the obstacles mentioned earlier, Community harmonisation,
meaning a common framework to be imposed on all Member States by
means of a directive, is neither realistic nor – for some – even
desirable.
- Action at all levels of power and decision-making, under
the principle of subsidiarity
Subsidiarity,
in European jargon, means that decisions should be made and action
taken as close as possible to those directly concerned. This involves
doing at Community level only what cannot be done at a lower level,
and leaving decisions in other cases to the Member States, the social
partners or individual companies. Models or principles formulated
at Community level should be implemented in a flexible manner to
ensure that each country’s specific features are respected.
- Incorporating action into a broader international context
In particular,
there is the prospect of the accession to the EU of a number of
central and eastern European countries (CEECs), and participation
in networks such as the Capital Ownership Group, an informal worldwide
network whose purpose is to establish an international coalition
with a view to promoting wider ownership of productive capital,
reducing inequalities, contributing to stable growth, facilitating
the development of productive capacity and improving quality of
life and living conditions for everyone.
Obstacles to a European policy
Only 6% of European
firms have provided for financial participation to date. Hierarchy
still prevails in both public- and private-sector organisations.
In some countries, such as France and the United Kingdom, financial
participation is officially recognised; in other countries it is
just a form of salary given to the executives.
- No Community competence
Industrial relations,
taxation, social security and pension systems, and wages policy
are exclusively the preserve of Member States and of the social
partners. The EU can at most promote pooling of information and
a Europe-wide social dialogue in these areas.
- Great disparities
between Member States
In the spheres
of taxation and industrial relations – and employee shareholding
and financial participation –, many disparities remain between the
Member States, relating to financial markets, forms of participation,
the purpose of participation schemes, and worker protection and
representation.
- Fragmented markets
The European financial
market is too fragmented, unlike that of the United States. In Europe,
there are a number of legal barriers to listing on the stock market,
there are relatively few large companies and the great majority
of firms – SMEs and micro-enterprises – do not have access to the
financial markets.
- Dubious or hostile
social partners
At European level,
the European Trade Union Confederation
(ETUC) has expressed support for employee shareholding and
participation but has laid down a set of conditions reflecting the
fundamental concerns of its members (72 national trade unions and
15 sectoral organisations, from 33 European countries). ETUC’s priority
is to maintain and promote employment, and it is by linking the
financial participation and employment issues – and removing the
connection with wages – that it can promote it most effectively
both among its national members and at European level.
ETUC nevertheless
emphasises that no Europe-wide framework agreement can emerge unless
European employers, represented by UNICE, express their stance on
the matter.
The
benefits of employee share ownership and participation
A survey commissioned
by the Dublin-based European Foundation for the Improvement of Working
and Living Conditions showed that firms with high participation
levels are more innovative than others, and also benefit from other
positive effects such as increased motivation, productivity and
wage flexibility.
The workshop confirmed
the advantages outlined in the EFES draft memorandum:
- Staff motivation – improved business performance
- Fairer distribution of corporate wealth
- Job preservation and creation
- Fostering of entrepreneurship
- Sustainable development
- Additional resources for staff
- A more stable society
The workshop identified
the following additional benefits:
- Controlled inflation
Growth without
inflationary pressure is fundamental for Europe. One of Bill Clinton’s
economic advisers has evaluated the effect of the USA’s lead in
developing employee share ownership and financial participation
at 100 additional basis points in GDP growth.
- Wage flexibility
The surveys have
shown that financial participation increases wages instead of replacing
them, except in specific circumstances.
- Capital formation, accessible to people
with small and medium incomes.
- Corporate independence
EO strengthens
the independence of companies, which belong to local owners.
Outline of good practice models
The participants
indicated a set of prerequisites for making the most of financial
participation.
- Participation in decision-making
In Europe, participation
breaks down into direct participation, representative participation
and financial participation. The best way to improve participation
is to improve the interaction between these three "pillars".
Financial participation complements the other types of participation.
It must be combined with participation in decision-making, information
and adequate training for workers (corporate governance).
-
Restricting or covering risks
for workers
Shares are risk
capital. Safeguards can be introduced against speculation, the risk
of losses for workers and inappropriate use of participation plans
(to get rid of the devalued shares of a troubled company, for instance).
The means put
forward to restrict or cover risks include: legal certainty, tax
breaks and economic stability; professional legal advice and a sound
financial partnership to back the introduction of the participation
plan; and the creation of investment companies.
- Voluntary participation
Most participants
agreed that worker participation must be voluntary, under both national
and corporate regulations. This is not the case in France, where
employee share ownership is a legal obligation. The French argument
for a mandatory framework is based on the desire to make good an
imbalance between employers and workers, which prevents fair bargaining
and freedom of choice for employees.
- Respect for the rights
of all workers
Financial participation
and the resulting involvement in decision-making should not undermine
the workers’ existing rights relating
to participation in works councils, information and access to decision-making,
whether or not they are employee shareholders. Also, they must be
without prejudice to applicable collective agreements.
- Training and information
for workers
For employee shareholders
to enjoy full access to their rights and to balanced dialogue alongside
the company’s other shareholders, provision must be made for training
and information on fundamental business issues and the company's
management. In addition, an ethos of shareholding and participation
must be promoted.
- Access to shareholding
and participation for all employees
A number of participants
stressed the need to reduce rather than increase discrepancies between
company employees and the importance of redistributing income through
employee share ownership and participation. This implies that participation
plans must be available to all employees rather than just senior
executives as is, unfortunately, sometimes the case.
- Participation in SMEs,
unlisted companies and public services
SMEs also play
a very important role in the economy, alongside multinational companies.
They must be taken into account, together with firms which are not
listed on the stock exchange, in the drafting of models and legislation.
Introducing participation plans is costly for SMEs, so provision
must be made for specific aids and tax relief measures. The benefits
of participation in public services were also mentioned.
Conclusion and follow-up
This European
workshop was an important step in developing the EFES campaign to
make 1999 the year of public support for employee share ownership
and financial participation in Europe.
It met with a
favourable response from all the European institutions.
Priorities for
action were decided, with each institution having its own role to
play.
EFES will ensure
that the conclusions of this First European Workshop are acted on;
a first follow-up workshop will be held during the Second European
Meeting of Employed Shareholders, in Warsaw on 13 November 1999.
FIRST EUROPEAN WORKSHOP FOR EMPLOYEE
OWNERSHIP AND PARTICIPATION
Brussels 30.4.99
Rapporteur Report, by David Erdal
I am grateful
for the chance to be here, and for the job of rapporteur, which
is very beneficial, since makes you listen to everything that is
said, and think about it.
I am a member
of EFES because of two things: I led a buyout of Tullis Russell,
a paper manufacturing company employing about 1200, into 100% employee
and trust ownership in 1994; and I am chairman of Job Ownership
Ltd, which has been lobbying in the UK on employee ownership matters
for over 20 years.
I will try to
summarise and make a few comments on the main points of the conference
as I see them, under two headings: the benefits of employee ownership
and participation, and what we can do at the European level to promote
it.
The Benefits of Employee Ownership and Participation.
A wide range of
benefits has been identified.
At the macro-economic
level, a major benefit is growth without increasing inflationary
pressure. One of the US president's senior economic advisers is
on record as concluding that if employee ownership was spread throughout
the US economy then GNP could grow a full percentage point faster
with no inflationary pressure. That of course feeds directly into
employment.
The mechanism by which this occurs
is mainly wage flexibility, and we heard from the unions on that;
but we also heard that research shows that generally emloyee share
ownership is on top of wages, and is not associated with reduced
wages except in special circumstances.
At the micro-economic
level, the main benefit is improved company performance. More and
more people are realising that the old authoritarian structures
- which are still standard in our cultures, with the inevitable
Trade Union reaction to such a system - are more costly than structures
of involvement. On this question of company performance and employee
ownership, the distinguished economist Professor Richard Freeman
gave a series of lectures at the London School of Economics recently
in which he presented the conclusions of a meta-study of all the
research into this question: he says that there is now no doubt
whatsoever that improved performance follows from employee ownership
combined with other forms of involvement.
We also heard
about capital formation, which is a newer and less studied angle
on employee ownership. In the UK two working groups have been set
up to design new schemes: one is on this question of using equity
incentives in start-up hig tec companies.
But there is also
no doubt that employee owernship makes people more entrepreneurial
in their attitudes. The performance effect comes about primarily
through engendering greater commitment. One aspect of employee ownership
that was not mentioned is that it tends to keep companies independent
and locally owned too.
Beneficial social
effects identified in the conference include the fact that employee
ownership spreads wealth more widely. Of course this only happens
if the schemes are designed to do so. I would like to add this observation:
some speakers seemed to assume that the main way of generating employee
ownership is for employees to save their wages and use these savings
to buy shares. This does not have any wealth spreading effect: if
companies do well then share values rise much faster than wages,
so the employees will lose out. Instead, the company must use some
of its cash flow to achieve the transfer of ownership into employee
hands: this is the only way in which capital ownershhip can be spread
to any significant extent. The fundamental insight behind the US
ESOP system, from back in the 1950's, is that business assets pay
for themselves. This fact allows them to be leveraged to pay for
the transfer of ownership, and the borrowings repaid out of future
earnings. I do not know of any studies on the spread of wealth,
but it must happen: in the UK 50% of households have les than £50
in liquid assets, but the employees in the buyout I led will have
shares worth at least a year's salary when they retire. that is
genuine wealth reditribution, with this magic ingredient too: it
is wealth redistribution achieved in a way that enhances company
performance - unlike redistributive taxes.
We also heard
how empl