Explore the vast range of titles available.

The authors investigate potential discrimination against people with disabilities through a field experiment that sent job applications to 6,016 accounting positions for which the applicants’ disabilities are unlikely to affect productivity. One-third of the cover letters disclosed that the applicant had a spinal cord injury, one-third disclosed the presence of Asperger’s syndrome, and one-third did not mention disability. The disability applications received 26% fewer expressions of employer interest. This gap was concentrated among experienced applicants and small private companies that are not covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Tests suggest possible positive effects of the ADA, but not of state laws, in reducing the disability gap. Results indicate there may be substantial room for employer and policy initiatives to improve employment opportunities for people with disabilities.

Work practices that involve employees are generally assumed to be less effective in more hierarchical societies where employees' values are not aligned with such practices. In this study, we challenge this assumption by developing a theory that differentiates between the symbolic and instrumental aspects of involvement work systems and proposing that their symbolic impact will be more pronounced in egalitarian societies, whereas their instrumental impact will be more pronounced in hierarchical societies. In particular, we draw on the symbolic action perspective and theories on culture to test the relationship between involvement work systems and operational effectiveness by incorporating organizational climate of participation and national cultural differences in power distance. Using multi-source, multilevel data from 260 facilities of a multinational company operating in 22 countries, we found that the mediated relationship between involvement work systems and operational effectiveness through climate of participation (i.e., the symbolic impact) was stronger among facilities located in lower power distance societies. On the other hand, the direct relationship between involvement work systems and operational effectiveness (i.e., the instrumental impact) was stronger in higher power distance societies. Overall, our study resolves a seeming cultural dilemma with regard to how involvement work systems operate cross-culturally.

Purpose“The latest available cross-country data presented in the PEPPER V Report (Lowitzsch and Hashi, 2024) can be viewed by examining EFP in and of itself as an isolated subject or it can be viewed in a much wider set of contexts. Widening the lens in order to examine EFP in the context of the concentration of capital ownership and the concentration of capital income can help observers establish EFP’s span of relevance. In particular US data on capital income show that policy makers need to be aware that EFP can have an important role in narrowing the income and wealth gap for the working middle class when the concentration of capital ownership and capital income is high and when real wage growth is low.”Design/methodology/approach“Against this background, this article makes a very straightforward observation that the relevance of EFP in an economic system, in a country, and for the average employee in a country is related to the trend in the concentration of capital ownership and capital income. Interest in the idea is potentially increased or decreased by trends in real wages. Atkinson, who many consider the founder of modern wealth concentration scholarship, “focuses on the increasing share of capital incomes a source of income inequality among individuals” (Cirillo et al., 2017, p. 1). Indeed, we consider the difference between labour’s share and capital’s share to be a critically important fundamental problem of political economy. This essay asserts that when this concentration is high and real wages are flat, other things being equal, EFP may be more relevant. When the concentration of capital ownership and capital income is high, this means that ownership and income on that ownership is thinly spread in the population. When real wages are flat, this means that the rate at which fixed wages can replenish wealth is decreasing. As a result, both trends would make EFP more relevant.”FindingsThe conceptual model suggested for this article asserts that the relevance of EFP can be viewed as a function of narrowing income and wealth options for the working middle class when the concentration of capital ownership and capital income is high and when real wage growth is low. Does this relevance change across economic systems? There is no question that the future understanding of these issues requires adding metrics to the statistical methodologies of different regions and countries and adding to existing reports and analyses that focus on both the dynamics of and trends in capital income (property income in the EU) and on the EUR and USD value of EFP at the mean and at the median for different income levels of the populationOriginality/valueThis article presents – for the first time – a society-wide measure of the impact of EFP on one economy, namely, the US For further research, it makes sense to build on the comparable data available on the distribution of capital ownership and have similar research on the distribution of capital income for both the EU and the US along with measures of the EUR and USD values of EFP.

PurposeThis paper offers a new perspective on the potential motivation for the adoption of employee ownership based on market power. Employee ownership may be linked to market power, either through contributing to firm growth that leads to market power or through industry leaders adopting employee ownership as part of rent sharing or a broader consolidation of market position. Both employee stock ownership plan (ESOP) coverage and product market concentration (PMC) have been increasing in the past two decades, providing a good opportunity to see if and how these are related.Design/methodology/approachThe authors predict ESOP adoption and termination using multilevel regressions based on 2002–2012 firm- and industry-level data from the Census Bureau, Compustat and Form 5500 pension datasets.FindingsThe authors find that the top four firms in concentrated industries are more likely to adopt Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs), while having an ESOP does not predict entering the top four, apart from firm-level predictors. Tests indicate the first result does not reflect simple rent sharing with employees but instead appears to reflect an effort by firms to consolidate market power through the attraction and retention (or “locking in”) of industry talent. Other positive predictors of ESOPs include company size, being in a high-wage industry and having a defined benefit (DB) pension.Research limitations/implicationsTo better distinguish among hypotheses, it would be helpful to have firm-level data on managerial attitudes, strategies, networks and monopsony measures. Therefore, future research using such data would be highly useful and encouraged.Practical implicationsThe paper includes implications for the potential usefulness of ESOPs in attracting and retaining talent and for the design of nuanced policy to encourage more broadly based sharing of economic rewards.Originality/valueWhile prior research focuses on firm-level predictors of employee ownership, this study uses market concentration and other industry-level variables to predict the use of ESOPs. This study makes a unique contribution, broadening the current thinking on firm motives and environmental conditions predictive of firm ESOP adoption.

PurposeThis viewpoint will present some statistical information about employee ownership in the US and interpret and analyze this information in order to address the barriers question using material from qualitative interviews that the authors have conducted over the last ten years with practitioners in the field. There have been few actual empirical studies that sort out the different barriers to employee ownership. The authors have chosen to focus on employee stock ownership plan (ESOP) in the US because this is the principal example from which people could learn from, and the high prevalence of ESOPs plays an important role in the US. This overview will present interpretations of these interviews with conceptual arguments that cannot always be supported with either overwhelming empirical studies or arguments that conclusively eliminate one or other explanation. This is an initial attempt to bring some comprehensive treatment and data to this incipient discussion. This is based on an interpretive analysis of qualitative interviews without quantification or social survey methods used for measurement. The advantage of this approach is that it lays out a completely different level of analysis of the barriers to employee ownership in the US that is “closer to the ground” and more based in the views of front-line practitioners who are actually implementing it.Design/methodology/approachAnalysis and interpretation of qualitative interviews.FindingsThe list of barriers that has been identified is not exhaustive. The preliminary conclusions are that (not necessarily in this order) limitations of investment banking models, poor supportive infrastructure, complexity and cost and regulatory issues, the lack of support by political parties and social movements, the sale of companies due to financial considerations and legal complexities and lack of clarity and resistance by Federal agencies are major barriers in the US. Various sectors of Wall Street has been amenable to employee ownership with the proper government and private sector support. What is needed now is a series of quantitative surveys and qualitative interviews of retiring business owners in closely held companies and of CEOs and CFOs in stock market companies in order to gauge the barriers that they believe are blocking their own action in the employee share ownership area. The Rutgers Institute for the Study of Employee Ownership and Profit Sharing is working on such a research agenda at this time. In addition, with the future size of the US employee ownership sector at stake, a more intensive one-year interview project would make sense in order to present these different explanations to key actors and practitioners and ask them to provide evidence to prove or disprove the relevance of the different barriers.Research limitations/implicationsEmpirical research which can resolve which barriers are more important than others is presented, when possible; however, studies that provide metrics to compare different barriers are not available and need to be carried out.Practical implicationsOther countries considering employee ownership policies can learn from the US experience. US policymakers and legislators can learn from an original, recent discussion of barriers.Social implicationsIf employee ownership sectors are to be developed, a careful discussion of barriers is most relevant.Originality/valueOriginal document by the authors based on original interviews.

To what extent are people with disabilities fully included in economic, political and social life? People with disabilities have faced a long history of exclusion, stigma and discrimination, but have made impressive gains in the past several decades. These gains include the passage of major civil rights legislation and the adoption of the 2006 UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. This book provides an overview of the progress and continuing disparities faced by people with disabilities around the world, reviewing hundreds of studies and presenting new evidence from analysis of surveys and interviews with disability leaders. It shows the connections among economic, political and social inclusion, and how the experience of disability can vary by gender, race and ethnicity. It uses a multidisciplinary approach, drawing on theoretical models and research in economics, political science, psychology, disability studies, law and sociology.

Many workers with disabilities face cultures of exclusion in the workplace, which can affect their participation in decisions, workplace engagement, job attitudes and performance. The authors explore a key indicator of engagement-perceptions of organizational citizenship behavior (OCB)-as it relates to disability and other marginalized identities in the workplace. Using an online survey, legal professionals answered questions about their workplace experiences. Ordinary least squares (OLS) multivariate regression analysis with progressive adjustment was used to investigate the effect of demographic and organizational factors on perceptions of OCB. The authors find that employees with disabilities have lower perceptions of OCB, both before and after controlling for other personal and job variables. The disability gap is cut nearly in half, however, when controlling for workplace culture measures of co-worker support and the presence of an effective diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) policy. Disability does not appear to interact with gender, race/ethnicity and LGBTQ + status in affecting perceptions of OCB. The results point to the workplace barriers faced by people with disabilities that affect their perceptions of engagement, and the potential for supportive cultures to change these perceptions.

The organization problem, where clear models are missing for organizing employee ownership; The entry/exit problem of employee-owners to ensure that the retiring employees give up and the entering employees obtain ownership; The start-up problem, where it is hard to organize a group of employee to be owners in the start-up stage; The capital problem, where there are difficulties to raise enough capital for start-ups and the further development of companies with significant employee ownership; The risk problem where employees can be at risk of both losing both their jobs and their owner capital. Leading researchers of employee ownership collected the data and wrote the reports of their countries in the winter of 2021–2022. Besides the countries described in Part 1, the project also included experience in the UK and the USA. In all these countries, with a relatively high prevalence of employee ownership, legislation has played an important role. [...]the last article in this special issue focuses on the policy implications. According to the authors, in July 2022, there were 1,070 employee-owned companies in the UK (not including the relatively small group of worker cooperatives with around 6,000 employees). According to Rosen, the main features of the USA ESOP to overcome the barriers have been the broad-based all-employee model of the ESOP with the shares held in the trust.