James C. Sesil

Sharing Ownership via Employee Stock Ownership

There is considerable focus at the moment on equity ownership. According to an article in The Economist, 1 in 2001 over 50 per cent of the adult population in the United States owned equity. This was a 100 per cent increase since the time of the market correction in 1987. Equity ownership is not only a growing phenomenon in the United States but is also occurring worldwide. More than 50 per cent of Australians and 20 per cent of Germans own shares, and equity ownership is growing in virtually every major Western country.2 Equity ownership, in the form of stocks or property, plant and equipment, has always been an important element of the wealth of upper-income people in Western societies. However the recent rise of equity ownership has occurred in the context of four major developments. First, equity markets have grown as a way of raising funds and have prospered as a result of general business expansion, the rise of world capital markets and the wide diffusion of information technology in financial markets.

DOES EMPLOYEE OWNERSHIP ENHANCE FIRM SURVIVAL

Research on employee ownership has focused on questions of productivity, profitability, and employee attitudes and behavior, while there has been little attention to the most basic measure of performance: survival of the company. This study uses data on all U.S. public companies as of 1988, following them through 2001 to examine how employee ownership is related to survival. Estimation using Weibull survival models shows that companies with employee ownership stakes of 5% or more were only 76% as likely as firms without employee ownership to disappear in this period, compared both to all other public companies and to a closely matched sample without employee ownership. While employee ownership is associated with higher productivity, the greater survival rate of these companies is not explained by higher productivity, financial strength, or compensation flexibility. Rather, the higher survival is linked to their greater employment stability, suggesting that employee ownership companies may provide greater employment security as part of an effort to build a more cooperative culture, which can increase employee commitment, training, and willingness to make adjustments when economic difficulties occur. These results indicate that employee ownership may have an important role to play in increasing job and income security, and decreasing levels of unemployment. Given the fundamental importance of these issues for economic well being, further research on the role of employee ownership would be especially valuable.

An assessment of employee ownership in the United States with implications for the EU

The United States has developed a varied and widespread employee ownership sector. This sector has two distinct sub-sectors, the public stock market and small privately-held firms. There is a significant gap in the incidence and development of employee ownership between the European Union (EU) and the US when both sectors are examined. Socioeconmic system differences between the EU and the US suggests that EU employee ownership will be more likely to develop if the EU expands citizen participation in its public stock markets and creates legislative support for selling smaller family businesses to employees. Second, US employee ownership is deficient in direct employee participation in corporate governance. If employees are to have reasonable rights to protect their investment risk, the US will have to converge with the EU in terms of its appreciation of the co-determination rights of workers. The development of employee ownership in the US can be better understood by appreciating the subtleties of how the argument that ownership causes superior performance of employee owned firms is presented. Most employee ownership firms will use the pull model of employee ownership where the firm never makes the extreme commitments of cultural transformation that are necessary to drive better corporate performance. We expect that the push model of employee ownership will continue to be the basis of a more “utopian” image of employee ownership. The pull model of employee ownership is based on the notion that the structure of compensation has changed in modern society and corporations are increasingly looking for ways to provide modest fix wage commitments and pay AFTER performance has taken place. The collapse of the fixed wage system plays a key role in the emergence of employee ownership in the US. Research on the wealth effects of employee ownership supports the perception that employee ownership firms are more generous. It is only this evidence that creates the basis of broad public support of the idea. This last observation helps explain why employee ownership has become so popular in the United States despite the fact that it violates a common precept of investment, namely, that a diversified basket of investments are the most rational market investment. Too much US employee ownership was “bogus employee ownership” based on workers purchasing stock with their savings. To the extent the EU wants to learn about employee ownership from the US, it should not imitate these mistakes.

The Impact of Employee Stock Option Adoption and Incidence on Productivity: Evidence from U.S. Panel Data

This paper examines the productivity effect of broad‐based and executive stock option programs in adoption year and five subsequent years. The findings include a positive impact on productivity, which is maintained over a five‐year period after adoption for executive plans but diminishes immediately for broad‐based plans. We interpret these findings as evidence of stock option usage being of benefit to organizations. However, to sustain the impact of broad‐based plans options, grants may need to be made with the same frequency as executive option grants.

Do Broad‐Based Stock Options Promote Organization Capital?

There is a growing body of empirical literature that provides evidence that stock option usage is associated with greater firm‐level output. Little is known, however, about the mechanisms associated with this result. Focusing on broad‐based employee stock options, we hypothesize organization capital as one mechanism underlying the positive impact of stock options. The evidence we provide here shows a positive relationship between stock options and organization capital.