Defining employee ownership: four meanings and two models
PurposeThe field of broad-based employee ownership within corporations is a specific application of the foundational topic of property ownership. It is situated at the intersection of a broad range of scholarly disciplines including economics, law, finance and management. Each discipline contributes...
Saved in:
Published in | Journal of Participation and Employee Ownership Vol. 7; no. 1; pp. 1 - 25 |
---|---|
Main Author | |
Format | Journal Article |
Language | English |
Published |
Bingley
Emerald Publishing Limited
14.06.2024
Emerald Group Publishing Limited |
Subjects | |
Online Access | Get full text |
Cover
Loading…
Summary: | PurposeThe field of broad-based employee ownership within corporations is a specific application of the foundational topic of property ownership. It is situated at the intersection of a broad range of scholarly disciplines including economics, law, finance and management. Each discipline contributes vocabulary and distinctions describing this field. That broad spectrum of disciplinary inquiry is a strength but it also lends a “ships passing in the night” quality to discussions of employee ownership. This paper attempts to unravel the narrative diversity surrounding this topic. Four meanings of ownership are introduced. Those meanings are in turn embedded within two abstract models of the corporation; the corporation as property and the corporation as social institution.Design/methodology/approachThere is no experimental design The paper presents a conceptual overview and introduces a taxonomy of four meanings and two models of ownership.FindingsFour meanings of ownership are introduced. The meanings are ownership as compensation, investment, retirement and membership. Those meanings are in turn embedded within two abstract models of the corporation; the corporation as property and the corporation as social institution.Research limitations/implicationsNo hypotheses are advanced. This is not a research paper. A conceptual overview that makes use of taxonomy of meanings and models is introduced to help clarify confusions abundant in the field of employee ownership. Readers may differ with the categories of meanings and models introduced in this conceptual overview.Practical implicationsThe ambition of the paper is to describe the various meanings and models of employee ownership presently in use in both academic and applied settings. It is not necessary or desirable to assert the primacy of a single meaning or model in order to achieve progress. The analysis provided here surfaces a range of assumptions about ownership that have heretofore been implicit in both scholarship and in practice. Making those assumptions explicit should prove useful to both scholars and practitioners of employee ownership.Social implicationsThe concept of employee ownership enjoys a relatively broad appeal with the public. Among the academic disciplines that have trained their lights upon it, a more mixed reception prevails. Much of the academic and policy controversy derives from confusion about the nature and structure of employee ownership. This paper attempts to address that confusion by presenting a taxonomy of meanings and models that may prove useful for future research.Originality/valueThis study is one of the first efforts to comprehinsively map the various meanings and models of broad-based employee ownership. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 2514-7641 2514-765X |
DOI: | 10.1108/JPEO-10-2022-0019 |