We Moved! As of November 17, 2014, our address is 1629 Telegraph Ave., Suite 200, Oakland, CA 94612. (Our phone numbers remain the same.)
Home » Publications »

Employee Ownership and Corporate Performance

An NCEO Issue Brief

by Corey Rosen

$15.00 for NCEO members; $25.00 for nonmembers

A 20% quantity discount will be applied if you are a member (or join now) and order 10 or more of this publication. If you need to order more than the maximum number in the drop-down list below, change the quantity once you have added it to your shopping cart.

This ebook may not be resold or given away to others. If you would like to share this book with another person, please purchase an additional copy for each recipient. For example, if you want a copy for yourself and two colleagues, choose the quantity 3, add it to your cart, and check out. You will then download one copy that you can also provide to your two colleagues. Thank you for respecting our rights as an independent publisher.

Quantity:

NCEO members who supply their members area username and password during checkout can download digital publications like this one immediately after submitting an online order. Others will immediately receive a download link that will become live within one business day.

This issue brief, which replaces an older book with the same name, summarizes studies on the relationship between employee ownership, employee participation, and corporate performance that have been performed in the last few decades. Most of the studies are on ESOPs, not on stock options and other forms of equity compensation, simply because most of the research, especially in past years, has been on ESOPs.

About Our Issue Briefs

Our issue briefs cover a variety of special topics and are available in PDF and hard-copy format. They are available for individual purchase, but you also can buy an issue brief subscription and receive every new one as it is released. Read here for details or to order.

Publication Details

Format: PDF, 41 pages
Publication date: January 2011
Status: Available for electronic delivery

Usage Rights for NCEO Digital Publications

When you download an NCEO digital publication that you purchase or subscribe to (or that someone purchases or sponsors for you), you may copy it to any computer or other electronic device you personally use, and you may print it for your own use. However, you may not share it with others unless you purchase a license to do so or buy a copy for each person.

Contents

Preface
Understanding the Findings
Research on ESOPs in Closely Held Companies
Joseph Blasi and Douglas Kruse, ESOPs and Corporate Performance in Closely Held Companies
Michael Quarrey and Corey Rosen, Employee Ownership and Corporate Performance
U.S. General Accounting Office, Employee Stock Ownership Plans: Limited Evidence of Impact on Corporate Performance
Gorm Winther, Peter Kardas, and Paul Somers, Two Studies on Employee Ownership and Corporate Growth in New York and Washington State
The Ohio Employee Ownership Center, A Study of Employee Ownership in Ohio
Jill Maxwell, Corey Rosen, and Ryan Weeden, Open-Book Management and Corporate Performance
Ohio Employee Ownership Center, ESOPs, Employee Involvement, and Corporate Performance: What Works Best?
Research on ESOPs and Corporate Performance in Publicly Traded Companies
Robert Stretcher, Steve Henry, and and Joseph Kavanugh, The ESOP Performance Puzzle in Public Companies
Olubunmi Faleye, Vikas Mehrotra, and Randall Morck, When Labor Has a Voice in Corporate Governance
Hamid Mehran, Unleashing the Power of Employee Ownership
Mary Ducy, Zahid Igbal, and Aige Akhigbe, Employee Stock Ownership Plans and Cash Flow Performance of Publicly Traded Firms
Margaret M. Blair, Douglas L. Kruse, and Joseph R. Blasi, Employee Ownership: An Unstable Form or a Stabilizing Force
The Effects of ESOPs on Wealth, Income, and Workers' Compensation Costs
Joseph Blasi and Douglas Kruse, ESOPs and Corporate Performance in Closely Held Companies
Corey Rosen, Retirement Security and Wealth Accumulation in S ESOP Companies
Peter Kardas, Adria Scharf, and Jim Keogh, Wealth and Income Consequences of Employee Ownership"
Leslie Hakala, Employee Ownership and Workers' Compensation Rates
Stock Options and Corporate Performance
Ariel Hochberg and Laura Lindsey, Incentives, Targeting and Firm Performance: An Analysis of Non-Executive Stock Options
James Sesil and Yu Peng Li, Executive and Broad-Based Stock Options: Evidence From U.S. Panel Data
Douglas Kruse, Joseph Blasi, Jim Sesil, and Maya Krumova, Broadly Granted Stock Options and Corporate Performance
James Sesil and Marya Krumova, Broad-Based Stock Options Before and After the Market Meltdown
James Sesil, Joseph Blasi, Douglas Kruse, and Maya Krumova, Performance Effects of Options in "New Economy" and Unionized Companies
David Larcker, Christopher Ittner, and Richard Lamber, The Structure and Performance Consequences of Equity Grants to Employees of New Economy Firms
Conclusion

Excerpts

From "Research on ESOPs and Corporate Performance in Closely Held Companies"

Kruse and Blasi are the preeminent researchers in the employee ownership field, and have previously worked with the NCEO on studies on ESOPs and stock options. In this study, they obtained files from Dun and Bradstreet on ESOP companies that had adopted their plans between 1988 and 1994. They matched these companies to non-ESOP companies that were comparable in size, industry, and region. The study focused on those companies that had sales and employment data available for a period three years before the ESOP companies set up their plans and three years after. The sales and employment growth data were then compared for each year for each paired company. They also checked the companies' filings with the Department of Labor to determine which of the companies had other retirement-oriented benefit plans. Finally, they looked to see what percentage of the companies remained in business in the period from 1995 through 1997.

The process yielded 343 ESOP companies and 343 paired companies for the overall sample. However, missing data meant that employment data were available only for 254 ESOP companies and 234 pairs, 138 companies and 77 pairs for sales, and 115 ESOP companies and 65 pairs for sales/employee (some pair companies could be used for more than one ESOP company).

To illustrate the methodology, assume Bill's Hardware set up an ESOP in 1990. Bill's sales and employment data for 1987, 1988, and 1989 would be compared to Joe's Hardware (a non-ESOP company) for the those years, as well as for the three-year period after 1990. Bill's sales grew at 3% per year in the pre-ESOP period, while Joes's only grew at 2%. In the years after Bill's Hardware adopted its ESOP, however, its sales grew at 4% per year, while sales growth at Joe's stayed at 2% per year. The conclusion would be that, relative to Joe's Hardware, Bill's grew 1% per year faster in the post-ESOP period than before. In other words, the ESOP at least appears to be associated with a one percent increase in sales over what would have been expected.