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
(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
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.
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.
A particular
attention will be given to the social partners : trade unions as well as
employers.
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.
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.
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 |
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:
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.
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…
1. NCEO, Ryan Weeden
2. GEO, Ryan Weeden
3. COG, John Logue + Deborah
Olson
4. IAFP, David Hildebrandt +
Raymond Allouf
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.
(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.
(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.
-
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.
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.
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.
(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.
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.
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:
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,…
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?
Group 1
Defining audiences for
info-sorting appropriate contents
Group 2
Subgroups within EFES such as
CEECs
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:
1. Defining audiences/target
groups for info-sorting appropriate content + languages
2. Research + best practices
3. Legislation
4. Cooperation between
information providers
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
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
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
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.
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.
Useful tool to promote EO
To make EFES attractive
It convinces people :
-
managers
-
politicians
-
employees, with or without shares
-
trade unions
-
students
-
consumers…
How to make sure that the
research is understood?
Unions
Local government etc.
Consumers
Minority shareholders
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
-
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
Researchers come together and
apply for funding on the subjects of :
- technological developments
- a television programme on
internet
- networking
-
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
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.
-
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
-
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
What position do we have
towards the GEO which is organizing its conference just before ours.
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)