Re: Matrix Development

[Deborah Groban Olson <dgo@esoplaw.com>]

Dear Erik:

        Thank you for your reply, and we gladly accept your offer to update the
information on our matrix with the results of your research. Can you give
me an estimate of the time and resources needed to complete the research
for the matrix we have begun? I know it will never be complete, due to
changes over time. But I would like some estimate of the resources needed
for the research to provide some useful information on each of the
countries listed. I'd also like to know how your matrix has been used by
the public. I'm seeking this information to create a proposals and a
realistic budget for the next phase of COG's work.

        Best regards,
        Deb Olson
At 08:24 PM 1/3/00 -0600, you wrote:
>Dear Deb
>
>First of all I wish you all good health and full participation in the vital
>aspects of your life.
>
>Sorry for this late answer on the PEPPER matrix but had a study trip to the
>US and field trips in Europe(among other places visited also Kent State
>University and Ohio Employee Ownership Center which I enjoyed very much).
>About the PEPPER matrix. When Francine Van Den Bulcke and I did the PEPPER
>II study we had to stick to this matrix which was developed in 1990 for the
>first PEPPER report. Personally, however, I have some arguments against the
>basic definitions of financial participation that were used for PEPPER and
>doubts about the gathered data. There were some critics on PEPPER
>especially from the German side since the categories more or less exclude
>investments plans/saving schemes that do not solely invest employee savings
>in their own company. Another argument is that especially cash based profit
>sharing has nothing to do with participation in ownership. Since cog is
>aiming at wider distribution of capital ownership you should skip the
>category of CPS. Both arguments of course have important impacts on the
>data. It will probably mean that German rating will be higher and France
>rating will be lower. 
>Further comments would be to include 
>-a measure or estimate of the magnitude of the public stock market in
>relation to total capital in a country, and the share owned by employees; 
>-a division between employee ownership in public stock companies and in
>private closely held (smaller; although in Germany they might be quite big)
>companies (most figures are based on approved schemes and public stock
>market data, which means that PEPPER underestimates the amount of employee
>share ownership; and 
>-a measure of real participation: the nature of voting rights.
>
>I can inform you that I am finishing a report for the European Foundation
>for the Improvement of Living and Working conditions which is more or less
>an update of PEPPER II. As soon as the report is made available I could add
>the newest developments and for instance the positions of both trade unions
>and employers.
>
>With kind regards
>
>
>Erik Poutsma
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Dr. Erik Poutsma
>University of Nijmegen
>Nijmegen Business School
>P.O. Box 9108
>NL 6500 HK Nijmegen
>Netherlands
>Project Participation & Team-Entrepreneurship
>Tel.+31 24 3615628
>Fax +31 24 3611933
>Home Tel/Fax +31 24 6778978
>E-mail: e.poutsma@bw.kun.nl
>Home E-mail: e.poutsma@mailbox.kun.nl
>

Deborah Groban Olson
Project Co-ordinator
Capital Ownership Group Project
Ohio Employee Ownership Center
Kent State University
c/o Shared Equity Strategies, Inc.
3163 Penobscot Building 
Detroit, MI 48226
(313) 331-7821 or (313) 964-2460
(f) (313) 331-2567
email: dgo@esoplaw.com
web site: http://cog.kent.edu