RE: EFES: Answer to Shann Turnbull

[David Erdal <david@erdal.net>]

Marc and Rainer
This is an important point. If employee share ownership is not to be 
a relatively short-lived phenomenon, then there has to be a 
sustainable internal market for employees' shares. If the employee 
holding is significant and all the shares are held individually, then 
the internal market cannot be kept liquid - it takes too much 
cash.This is what led to the collapse of employee shareholding at 
National Freight, for example. The solution lies in making a large 
part of the employee holding COLLECTIVE. In the UK this is achieved 
through a trust. The really successful very long-lived employee owned 
companies (John Lewis, Ove Arup, Scott Bader) are in fact owned 100% 
by trusts for their employees.

The co-operative is another way of achieving the same effect: the 
ownership does not need to be re-financed. In Poptel, for example, 
the operating company is owned 51% by a co-operative of which all the 
employees are members. This has allowed them to sell 49% of the 
company to venture capitalists to enable them to develop and launch 
'.coop' as a top level domain name on the internet.

So the measures in the EU need to include support for COLLECTIVE 
holdings, whether through a trust, or a co-operative, or other things 
- an institute, or a charity etc.

yours
David

>Dear Marc,
>I agree 100% with you on the positive link between financial 
>participation and participative management. We need to insist on 
>this aspect. Just one remark, are we sure that the concept employee 
>share ownership covers co-operative forms of ownership ? If not, 
>wouldn't it be better and broader to speak about employee ownership 
>in general?
>Rainer Schlüter
>
>-----Message d'origine-----
>De : Marc Mathieu [mailto:marc.mathieu@pi.be]
>Envoyé : lundi 22 octobre 2001 17:18
>À : efes@cog.kent.edu
>Objet : Re: EFES: Answer to Shann Turnbull
>
>Dear Shann,
>
>Thank you very much for your contribution. I think that we agree 
>with you on "participation".
>
>We had a deep discussion in EFES in 1999: should we support just 
>"financial participation" or participation as a whole. We chose 
>"participation" as a whole. We are not an association for financial 
>participation but well for "employee ownership and participation". 
>If you look back to the preamble to our statutes, I think this is 
>deeply explained (see the page "mission" on the web site).
>
>Now in the draft opinion for the consultation organized by the 
>European Commission", we write.
>Would you please read it again and let me know if something should be added:
>
>  "EFES thinks that it is employee share ownership and participation 
> which should be the subject of a Community initiative, rather than 
>"financial participation". 
>The concept of financial participation is too general: many studies, 
>among which some supported by the Commission or the Dublin 
>Foundation, have shown that financial participation can have all its 
>social and economic benefits only if it is associated with a 
>participative management.  It is thus necessary to speak, as EFES 
>suggests, of employee share ownership and participation, rather than 
>of financial participation.
>This difference is very significant. Indeed, the concept of 
>"financial participation" had its originality and its relevance at 
>the end of the 80's.  Since then however, practices and research 
>have shown that the concept of financial participation, covering 
>even contradictory multiple practices, is now largely obsolete.
>Indeed, the concept of financial participation used by the 
>Commission covers three categories of practices: 
>·                  profit-sharing;
>·                  employee share ownership;
>·                  stock options.
>Research shows that employee share ownership and participation have 
>a positive impact on productivity, on economic and social dynamics 
>in general and on the volume of activity and employment:
>·                   When all-employees share ownership schemes are 
>connected to participative management, the impact is particularly 
>positive.
>·                   When share ownership does not include all 
>employees, but is targeted at certain categories only (as is often 
>the case in stock options schemes), the impact is positive but by 
>far lower than the preceding case. 
>·                   Lastly, profit-sharing has little impact, or 
>even a negative one.
>Consequently, the conclusion should be drawn:  one cannot any more, 
>as at the end of the 80's, to include in the same plan these various 
>or contradictory practices.
>It is indeed "employee share ownership and participation" which 
>should be the purpose of a specific support, rather than the former 
>obsolete concept of "financial participation".  This difference was 
>already the subject of several deepened debates, in particular 
>within the framework of the European Workshop of April 1999. 
>In addition, the working paper of the Commission staff understates 
>the effects of employee share ownership, when it states that 
>"employee share ownership provides for employee participation in 
>enterprise results in an indirect way, i.e. on the basis of 
>participation in ownership, either by receiving dividends or the 
>appreciation of employee-owned capital after the selling of the 
>shares... ". 
>Here still, the practice differed from concepts of the late 80's. 
>Employee share ownership has been shown to be effective and 
>significant, not only as participation in the financial results, but 
>especially as a factor of commitment in ownership, motivation, 
>company decision and management.  This is also why the connection 
>with participative forms of management has been shown to be a key 
>element.
>Let us repeat, it is the combination of employee share ownership and 
>participation which has proved particularly beneficial.  It is that 
>which the Community actions should encourage. 
>We observed on this point a great convergence between our 
>organizations of employee share ownership and the analysis made by 
>trade unions."
>Best regards
>Marc
>
>
>
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <mailto:sturnbull@mba1963.hbs.edu>Shann Turnbull
>To: <mailto:efes@cog.kent.edu>efes@cog.kent.edu
>Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2001 3:10 PM
>Subject: Re: EFES: EFES DRAFT OPINION ON EC CONSULTATION ON 
>FINANCIAL PARTICIPATION
>
>Marc
>
>Your report is to the point and hard hitting as other have commented 
>upon.  However, I am concerned that it often uses the word 
>"participation" without explaining that this applies to management 
>and/or control and not just to finance or ownership.
>
>You clearly make the important distinction between financial 
>participation and employee ownership but do not consistently make 
>the equally important need to associate ownership with control 
>and/or management.
>
>This problem is shared by the COG mission statement which ignores 
>the need to spread control with ownership. 
>
>Australia has a wider spread of share ownership than any other 
>country but control is getting more highly concentrate in management 
>through the use of share trusts and by pension funds being centrally 
>managed.  So spreading ownership can be counter productive unless 
>control is also distributed.  This is the subject of some of my 
>articles.  The most relevant is Reforming capitalism with worker 
>owners 
><http://cog.kent.edu/lib/Turnbull-ReformingCapitalismWithWorkerOwners.htm> 
>This points out that workers become second class citizens with 
>ownership is spread through share trusts like they are force to be 
>in the UK.
>
>Best regards
>
>Shann
>
>
>At 06:04 AM 20/10/2001, you wrote:
>
>>Here our draft opinion on the European Commission staff 
>>consultation on employee financial participation:
>>
>>  <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
>>DRAFT
>>October 19, 2001
>>
>>
>>OPINION OF THE EUROPEAN FEDERATION OF EMPLOYEE SHARE OWNERSHIP
>>on the COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER
>>on  " Financial participation of employees in the European Union "
>>(Document SEC(2001)1308 of the 26.7.2001)
>>
>>
>>
>>Synopsis: 
>>1.  About EFES
>>2.  EFES� opinion - synthesis
>>3.  Method and collected opinions
>>4.  Employee share ownership and participation, key elements of a 
>>European strategy for employment
>>5.  The concept of financial participation is obsolete; it is 
>>advisable to substitute for it employee share ownership and 
>>participation
>>6.  The program of the European Commission
>>7.  An adequate funding
>>8.    To set up a "permanent working party" and a European 
>>institute for employee share ownership and participation
>>9. Conclusion
>>
>>1.  ABOUT EFES
>>EFES â¤" the European Federation of Employee Share Ownership was 
>>constituted following the decision taken in May 1998 in Brussels, 
>>by a conference which brought together 250 participants from 28 
>>countries.  The Federation was quickly organized, under the statute 
>>of a not-for-profit international organization approved by the 
>>Belgian Government. 
>>EFES� objective is to act as the umbrella organization of 
>>employee owners and all persons, companies, trade unions, experts, 
>>researchers, institutions looking to promote employee share 
>>ownership and participation in Europe. 
>>This ambition is being carried out.  EFES counts members in the 
>>majority of the European countries, as well in the European Union 
>>as in the candidate countries.  Among the members of EFES, there 
>>are individuals, companies, associations, trade unions, experts, 
>>researchers and national federations.  The Board of Directors of 
>>EFES counts 22 representatives of 14 countries, and its Executive 
>>Office 7 people, who meet monthly. 
>>⤦/⤦
>>
>>
>>2.  EFES� OPINION - SYNTHESIS
>>In substance, EFES� opinion is as follows:
>>Yes, the European Commission should plan for a Community initiative 
>>aiming on employee share ownership and participation. 
>>We speak well about "employee share ownership and participation", 
>>rather than of "financial participation".  This distinction is 
>>significant.  Indeed, the concept of "financial participation" had 
>>its originality and its relevance at the end of the years ' 80. 
>>Since then, the practices and research showed that it is now 
>>largely obsolete.  Among the practices gathered under the concept 
>>of "financial participation", some appeared beneficial and the 
>>other negative ones.  The practices of employee share ownership 
>>joined to participative management were characterized by their 
>>positive impact on economic and social dynamics. 
>>Actions should be taken in the European Union, and also in the 
>>candidate countries. 
>>It is necessary to lay down general principles at European level to 
>>encourage greater and more efficient recourse to employee share 
>>ownership and participation schemes. 
>>The general principles and the actions which the Commission should 
>>include in its next Communication and its Action Plan are those 
>>defined in the "European Action Programme" of the European 
>>Federation of Employee Share Ownership. 
>>This programme is based on the Resolution of the European 
>>Parliament of January 1998 and it was written in conclusion of a 
>>workshop which had joined together, within the European Parliament 
>>in Brussels, the whole European institutions, as well as the social 
>>partners and the organizations of employee share ownership. 
>>This action programme awaits the European Commission particularly: 
>>·     to set up a permanent working party; 
>>·     to implement a programme with an adequate funding; 
>>·     to set up a European institute for employee share ownership 
>>and participation. 
>>This action programme is joined in its entirety to the present 
>>opinion, of which it forms integral part. 
>>
>>3.  METHOD AND COLLECTED OPINIONS
>>To prepare its opinion, EFES met and consulted a broad range of 
>>people and organizations:  representatives of governments, members 
>>of the European Parliament, trade-union representatives at European 
>>level, employers� organizations, organizations promoting employee 
>>share ownership, etc. 
>>EFES also organized a web forum on the topic of the consultation 
>>organized by the Commission.  Some characteristic collected 
>>opinions are reproduced in appendix.
>>The reactions which we collected from a broad range of actors have 
>>the same general tonality: 
>>One can only be delighted by the will affirmed by the Commission 
>>staff "to relaunch the debate on financial participation at 
>>European level, associating all the players concerned".
>>There are many positive aspects in the document, but one omission 
>>in the general principles and a glaring lack of proposals for 
>>action. 
>>The good points are: 
>>The Commission staff precisely affirms the preference for all 
>>employee schemes.
>>The Commission staff highlight the fact that financial 
>>participation boosts productivity.  This is the argument with the 
>>widest appeal, as productivity is associated with competitiveness, 
>>profitability and higher salaries and/or more leisure time.
>>The Commission staff shows that financial participation is being 
>>recognized widely as important.
>>The Commission staff also shows why it is necessary to take 
>>initiatives at the European level, not just the national level. 
>>This is important.
>>The general principles stated by the Commission staff contain a 
>>major omission.  Indeed, many studies show conclusively that 
>>financial participation only really works strongly when it is 
>>situated in a regime of participative management.  The document 
>>emphasises clarity and transparency, which are aspects of 
>>communication by managers, but not involvement and consultation of 
>>employees in the management process of the business. 
>>However with this argument we can win over trade union support, 
>>which is generally lacking, and which is necessary if we are to 
>>make progress in Europe in this field. 
>>At side of the positive aspects, in a general way, the reactions 
>>and the comments express  perplexity as for the intentions and the 
>>steps taken by the Commission, impression of an unexplainable 
>>timidity, disappointment, this one expressing itself sometimes even 
>>on a sharp tone (cf opinion reproduced in appendix:  "consultation 
>>or funeral?�)   
>>Within the European Federation of Employee Share Ownership itself, 
>>the impression which prevails is that of a disappointment compared 
>>to the past action of the Commission and waiting of a firmer and 
>>stronger action in the future. 
>>Indeed, EFES observes that the Summit of Lisbon put the point at 
>>the European social agenda.  EFES meets a listening and growing 
>>support from the governments.  As regards the European Parliament 
>>also, the supports for employee share ownership and participation 
>>were strengthened.  From the European Commission too, a better 
>>support is awaited. 
>>Among the questions and the reactions collected, let us note particularly: 
>>Why to have awaited the 1st of August to launch this consultation? 
>>A worse date would be difficult, on full holiday.  Why such a short 
>>deadline for reply (until October 30).  All that discourages rather 
>>the reactions and hinder a real consultation.  Furthermore, you 
>>don�t see, in the document, which could have prevented from 
>>diffusing it 6 months or even a year before.  
>>Of the Resolution of the European Parliament of January 1998, the 
>>working paper of the Commission staff retains only a general 
>>sentence, observing that "⤦the Parliament... made a number of 
>>calls on the Commission...  It requested the Commission in 
>>particular to promote the exchange of information and best practice 
>>at transnational level, to study the impact of financial 
>>participation schemes on employment and wage flexibility, and 
>>develop pilot projects for financial participation in public 
>>undertakings in the CEECs in connection with privatisation". 
>>However, the Parliament�s Resolution addressed to the Commission 
>>a whole of concrete, precise, practical requests. Not only these 
>>requests were not met by the Commission since 1998, but the 
>>document of consultation of the Commission omits them.
>>Lastly, it is strange that the document of consultation does not 
>>make mention anywhere of trade-unions. Difficult to understand such 
>>main omission. 
>>
>>
>>4.  EMPLOYEE SHARE OWNERSHIP AND PARTICIPATION, KEY ELEMENTS OF A 
>>EUROPEAN STRATEGY FOR EMPLOYMENT
>>Employee share ownership and participation should be in good place 
>>in a European strategy for employment.  It is still not the case. 
>>There is an awakening which yet did not gain the political decision 
>>makers. 
>>Indeed the development of employee share ownership and 
>>participation positively influences economic and social dynamics 
>>and employment.  This is not negligible, since it is estimated at 
>>1% a year additional growth of the GDP. In terms of employment in 
>>Europe, that potentially represents million additional jobs after a 
>>few years. 
>>In the document of consultation of the Commission, this factor is 
>>precisely highlighted (pages 8 and 9). 
>>In the opinion of EFES, this is a key point of the question.
>>Much remains to be made to carry the conviction of governments and 
>>European decision makers in this direction.  The document of the 
>>Commission indicates rightly that the general principles set forth 
>>in the PEPPER Reports have not been adequately incorporated into 
>>national policies. 
>>However, during these last years, EFES developed its relations with 
>>many governments and those show more and more their interest for 
>>employee share ownership and participation. 
>>In Belgium, the Belgian section of EFES was, at the sides of the 
>>Belgian Government, an active craftsman of a step which appears 
>>exemplary to us. Indeed, under the terms of a dialogue which fully 
>>associated the social partners, a good new legislation was adopted, 
>>directly inspired by PEPPER principles. 
>>With the support of the Belgian Presidency of the European Union, 
>>EFES organizes an international conference on November 23 2001 in 
>>Brussels.  The aim is to encourage the European Union and the 
>>European States to promote employee share ownership and 
>>participation.
>>We hope well that the European Commission will join the 
>>organization and the holding of this event. 
>>
>>
>>5.  THE CONCEPT OF FINANCIAL PARTICIPATION IS OBSOLETE;  IT IS 
>>ADVISABLE TO SUBSTITUTE FOR IT EMPLOYEE SHARE OWNERSHIP AND 
>>PARTICIPATION
>>EFES thinks that it is employee share ownership and participation 
>>which should be the subject of a Community initiative, rather than 
>>"financial participation". 
>>The concept of financial participation is too general: many 
>>studies, among which some supported by the Commission or the Dublin 
>>Foundation, showed that financial participation can have all its 
>>social and economic benefits only if it is associated with a 
>>participative management.  It is thus necessary to speak, as EFES 
>>suggests, of employee share ownership and participation, rather 
>>than of financial participation.
>>This difference is very significant. Indeed, the concept of 
>>"financial participation" had its originality and its relevance at 
>>the end of the years '80.  Since then however, the practices and 
>>research showed that the concept of financial participation, 
>>covering even contradictory multiple practices, is now largely 
>>obsolete.
>>Indeed, the concept of financial participation used by the 
>>Commission covers three categories of practices: 
>>·                  profit-sharing;
>>·                  employee share ownership;
>>·                  stock options.
>>Among the practices covered by the concept of "financial 
>>participation", some appeared beneficial and the other negative 
>>ones. The practices of employee share ownership joined to 
>>participative management were characterized by their positive 
>>impact on the productivity and economic and social dynamics. 
>>Research show that employee share ownership and participation have 
>>positive impact on productivity, on economic and social dynamics in 
>>general and on the volume of activity and employment:
>>·                   When all employees share ownership schemes are 
>>connected to participative management, the impact is particularly 
>>positive.
>>·                   When share ownership are not all employees 
>>schemes, but targeted at certain categories only (as it is often 
>>the case in stock options schemes), the impact is positive but by 
>>far lower than the preceding case. 
>>·                   Lastly, profit-sharing has little impact, or 
>>even a negative one.
>>Consequently, the conclusion should be drawn:  one cannot any more, 
>>as at the end of the years '80, to put on the same plan these 
>>various or contradictory practices.
>>It is well "employee share ownership and participation" which 
>>should be the purpose of a specific support, rather than the former 
>>obsolete concept of "financial participation".  This difference was 
>>already the subject of several deepened debates, in particular 
>>within the framework of the European Workshop of April 1999. 
>>In addition, the working paper of the Commission staff is, on the 
>>point of employee share ownership, exaggeratedly reducing, when it 
>>states that "employee share ownership provides for employee 
>>participation in enterprise results in an indirect way, i.e. on the 
>>basis of participation in ownership, either by receiving dividends 
>>or the appreciation of employee-owned capital after the selling of 
>>the shares... ". 
>>Here still, the practice differed with concepts of the late years 
>>'80.  Employee share ownership appeared effective and significant, 
>>not only as participation in the results, but especially as a 
>>factor of commitment in ownership, motivation, company decision and 
>>management.  This is also why also, the connection with 
>>participative forms of management appeared to be a key element.
>>Let us repeat it, it is the combination of employee share ownership 
>>and participation which proved particularly beneficial.  It is that 
>>which the Community actions should encourage. 
>>We observed on this point a great convergence between our 
>>organizations of employee share ownership and the analysis made by 
>>trade unions. 
>>
>>
>>6.  THE PROGRAM OF THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION
>>In its Resolution of January 1998, the European Parliament 
>>requested from the Commission "an adequately financed programme". 
>>That the actions of the Commission answer a programme, appears 
>>indeed to us a significant condition of transparency and 
>>effectiveness.
>>It also appears very significant to us that the results of the 
>>actions taken or supported by the Commission would be published and 
>>made available. 
>>The Commission precisely stresses through its various actions the 
>>importance of the exchanges of information in Europe.  It would be 
>>desirable that the Commission itself takes fully part in these 
>>exchanges and supports the communication between the actors.  The 
>>Commission herself has information which should be accessible to 
>>these actors, in particular on the studies, conferences and other 
>>initiatives that she finances or causes, including through the 
>>European Foundation for the improvement of the living and working 
>>conditions. 
>>The purpose of this communication and this information on behalf of 
>>the Commission on financed actions, will be in particular:
>>·         To support the exchanges and co-operation between 
>>actors, carrying projects. 
>>·         To establish criteria and righter, equitable and 
>>transparent procedures of selection. 
>>·         To support the complementarity of projects. 
>>In addition, in practice, the Commission finances currently only 
>>conferences, whereas the budgetary heading B3-4000 intended to 
>>finance actions aiming at the promotion of financial participation 
>>speaks " to support actions of promotion of good examples and 
>>networks as well as studies and measures of occupational 
>>qualification ". 
>>The means are not adequate, but also, the Commission did not 
>>propose a true program.  This one should support: 
>>·         Research, studies, surveys, analyses. 
>>·         Training (this concept being much broader than that of 
>>"measures of occupational qualification"). 
>>·         Conferences, seminars, meetings (as it is currently the case). 
>>·         Actions of information and communication supplementing 
>>what precedes:  publications, periodicals, web sites, reports and 
>>any action intended to disseminate the results of the studies and 
>>surveys and to make known by the public and the actors various 
>>aspects of employee share ownership and participation in Europe 
>>(stakes, obstacles, experiments and practices...)
>>·         Web portals, catalogues... allowing to have an overall 
>>picture of the state of research and current debates, not only in 
>>the EU, but also in other countries.  Currently, it the web portal 
>>opened by EFES (www.efesonline.org ) which answers this function 
>>best, but with too limited means.
>>
>>
>>7.  AN ADEQUATE FUNDING
>>It appears significant to us that a policy of promotion of employee 
>>share ownership and participation should have a well dedicated 
>>budgetary heading.
>>It is in this direction that the European Parliament in its 
>>Resolution of January 1998 went, by requesting from the Commission 
>>an adequate financing. 
>>When EFES was constituted, the first PEPPER Report went already 
>>back to some 10 years and many participants were astonished to note 
>>that the Commission still did not have dedicated budgetary means.
>>How indeed could we speak about policy or actions, if no means are 
>>implemented to? 
>>After the Resolution of the European Parliament of January 1998 and 
>>after the European Workshop organized by EFES at the European 
>>Parliament in April 1999 (workshop in which took part the 
>>Commission), one was still more astonished to see that no 
>>initiative seemed to be taken to assign means to the budget 1999. 
>>The astonishment was even larger, seeing the draft budget 2000, 
>>which did not provide for anything either.  Fortunately, EFES could 
>>discuss with a number of Members of the Parliament, and the draft 
>>budget was amended, by dedicating a share from the B3-4000 line 
>>"social dialogue" to assign it to the promotion of financial 
>>participation (and the situation reproduced for budgets 2001 and 
>>2002, since again, no initiative came from the Commission).
>>Force is to note that the assignment of a fraction of the B3-4000 
>>line to financial participation is a lame solution, which still 
>>does not give the "adequate� financing for a program aiming at 
>>the promotion of employee share ownership and participation. 
>>Indeed, to reduce the promotion of employee share ownership and 
>>participation in a simple facet of social dialogue is exaggeratedly 
>>reducing. 
>>Secondly, to put actions promoting employee share ownership out of 
>>balance with the promotion of social dialogue, it is to cause 
>>arbitrations which do not take place to be. 
>>Lastly, it is still not to recognize the promotion of employee 
>>share ownership and participation its specific value. 
>>
>>8.  TO SET UP A "PERMANENT WORKING PARTY" AND A EUROPEAN INSTITUTE 
>>FOR EMPLOYEE SHARE OWNERSHIP AND PARTICIPATION
>>The points exposed here are still in the wire of the Resolution of 
>>the European Parliament of January 1998 and the European Action 
>>Programme of EFES, namely: 
>>To develop indeed actions or a policy, one needs not only "an 
>>adequately financed programme", as the Parliament asked.  It is 
>>also necessary to indicate bodies of execution and persons in 
>>charge. Without that, nothing organized will be done and, at best, 
>>things will remain in state. 
>>To take in hands the execution of a Community action or a policy, 
>>the European Parliament suggested the setting-up of a "permanent 
>>working party" associating all main interested parties: 
>>representatives of both sides of industry, of employee share 
>>ownership organizations, Members of the European Parliament and 
>>Commission experts.
>>In the prolongation of this working party, what is wished is the 
>>installation of a European institute for the promotion of employee 
>>share ownership and participation. 
>>At the time of the European Workshop of April 1999, all interested 
>>parties decided for the creation of such a working party (except 
>>the notable exception of the Commission representatives, who gave a 
>>report on hesitations). 
>>In fact, the Parliament�s Resolution did not receive any 
>>continuation and the defect of body of execution explains certainly 
>>to a great extent, trampling observed these last years. 
>>
>>
>>9.  CONCLUSION - EFES� OPINION
>>As a conclusion, EFES� opinion is as follows:
>>1. Yes, the European Commission should plan for a Community 
>>initiative aiming on employee share ownership and participation. 
>>We speak well about "employee share ownership and participation", 
>>rather than of "financial participation. Among the practices 
>>gathered under the concept of "financial participation", some 
>>appeared beneficial and the other negative ones.  The practices of 
>>employee share ownership joined to participative management were 
>>characterized by their positive impact on economic and social 
>>dynamics. 
>>2. Yes, actions should be taken in the European Union, and also in 
>>the candidate countries. 
>>3. Yes, it is necessary to lay down general principles at European 
>>level to encourage greater and more efficient recourse to employee 
>>share ownership and participation schemes. 
>>4. The general principles and the actions which the Commission 
>>should include in its next Communication and its Action Plan are 
>>those defined in the "European Action Programme" of the European 
>>Federation of Employee Share Ownership. 
>>This programme is based on the Resolution of the European 
>>Parliament of January 1998 and it was written in conclusion of a 
>>workshop which had joined together, within the European Parliament 
>>in Brussels, the whole European institutions, as well as the social 
>>partners and the organizations of employee share ownership. 
>>5. This action programme awaits the European Commission particularly: 
>>·     to set up a permanent working party; 
>>·     to implement a programme with an adequate funding; 
>>·     to set up a European institute for employee share ownership 
>>and participation. 
>>This action programme is joined in its entirety to the present 
>>opinion, of which it forms integral part. 
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>For EFES,
>>Marc Mathieu
>>Secretary General
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>In appendix :
>>Appendix 1: « European Action Programme » of EFES, adopted as the 
>>conclusion of the European Workshop of 30 April 1999 at the 
>>European Parliament in Brussels ; the programme gives an appendix 
>>reproducing the Resolution of the European Parliament of January 
>>1998 and other reference documents.
>>Appendix 2: Some typical opinions collected through the forum on the web.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Marc Mathieu
>>Secretary General
>>EFES - EUROPEAN FEDERATION OF EMPLOYEE SHAREOWNERSHIP
>>FEAS - FEDERATION EUROPEENNE DE L'ACTIONNARIAT SALARIE
>>Avenue Voltaire 135, B-1030 Brussels
>>Tel/fax: +32 (0)2 242 64 30
>>E-mail: <mailto:marc.mathieu@ping.be>marc.mathieu@ping.be
>>See our web site: <http://www.efesonline.org>http://www.efesonline.org
>>EFES' objective is to act as the umbrella organization of employee 
>>owners and all persons, companies, trade unions, experts, 
>>researchers, institutions looking to promote employee ownership and 
>>participation in Europe.
>>
>
>Shann Turnbull  Ph.D.
>P.O. Box 266 Woollahra, Sydney, Australia, 1350
>Ph: +612 9328 7466 office; +612 9327 8487 home; Fax: +612 9327 1497;
>Life long E-mail: sturnbull@mba1963.hbs.edu 
>Alternate:sturnbull@optusnet.com.au
>http://members.optusnet.com.au/~sturnbull/index.html
>Papers at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=26239
>with other papers & book at http://cog.kent.edu/library.html

-- 
Baxi Partnership Ltd
West Court, Hepburn Gardens, St Andrews, Fife KY16 9LN
tel 01334 479 101 mobile 07884 188 364 fax 01334 473 129
email david@erdal.net