The Workgroup on Broadening Employee Ownership Transnationally was established to explore several areas:

· Employee ownership in multinational corporations;
· How international agencies/organizations can encourage broader employee ownership;
· The experience with organizing transnational bodies to support employee ownership;
· Transaction taxes on speculative currency transactions; How to get the concepts of broadened employee ownership into the international development mainstream; Other methods of broadening ownership through transnational efforts.

MNC's & Employee Ownership
Evidence indicates that, as business has become increasingly global, a growing trend toward the extension of various types of employee ownership plans among multinational/transnational companies (the terms are used interchangeably) has also developed. This seems to be happening in both U.S.-based companies and companies based in other parts of the world as well. About a quarter of the 1250 largest global companies offered share plans for all of their employees in 1998. And a model for an international ESOP that would work in most circumstances has been developed.

But it is certainly questionable whether this expansion of various kinds of employee ownership plans in multinational corporations actually results in true broadened ownership and broadened participation. Regardless of the motive or method, however, employee ownership spreads wealth.

What are some of the reasons that have led multinational corporations to increasingly introduce various types of employee ownership plans in their organizations?

The globalization of business has led to a concomitant globalization of the workforce and the need to maintain consistent and uniform employment policies throughout the world in order to be fair to all its employees and to be able to attract and retain, as well as to motivate, employees in different parts of the world. This "need" to be fair has been unquestionably promoted by the ease of communications and information flow that exists throughout the world today. It's relatively easy for an employee in one part of the world to find out what kind of pay and benefits his/her counterparts in another country are receiving.

Some corporations have utilized employee ownership to distinguish themselves in the public perception from others in their field. To maintain the consistency of their public image, especially in their home countries, corporations have felt it necessary to allow their foreign employees to participate.

Increasing employee ownership in multinational enterprises is a desirable objective even though some of it almost certainly is more of a management tool to motivate workers rather than employee ownership with meaningful participation. While there are differing opinions about the quality and substance of employee ownership in multinational corporations, it is increasing, and this trend is a step in the right direction, providing an avenue for more meaningful participation in the future.

An important topic for future discussion is: How can more multinationals be encouraged that employee ownership is a good thing for their employees and a good thing for them?

A Trade Union Response
Until relatively recently, the International Federation of Chemical, Energy, Mine and General Workers' Unions (ICEM), a trade union secretariat based in Brussels that has more than 20 million members worldwide, had largely concentrated on being an offsetting force to the power of multinational corporations through the formation of company networks, organizing solidarity actions and other activities designed to give unions support for the collective bargaining process. In 1999, the ICEM Second World Congress took the position that the danger posed by globalization emanated largely from investments that switch from country to country depending on perceived comparative advantages. So the Congress took the strategy that the best way to keep investment loyal to its roots is to give a stake in the company to the workers and the community. It is the position of the ICEM that those who are employed and who live around the plant contribute to the success of the enterprise and should have their rights protected as thoroughly as those who are the owners of the property. Further, the ICEM takes the position that employees and community should have the recognized right of first option to buy.

The ICEM, in recent years, has been pushing for what they refer to as global collective agreements. This is a high priority item for the ICEM. While such agreements are not meant to take the place of normal collective bargaining agreements, they seek to establish a framework of consistent treatment of a multinational's employees no matter where they work, something on the order of the OECD principles and the ILO conventions. One global collective agreement negotiated by the ICEM includes a company pledge of neutrality in union organizing campaigns. These global agreements are mostly with firms in European countries where unions are the norm and the public expects firms to work with unions and support the well-being of their employees and the communities where they are located. In contrast to the OECD and the ILO, the global collective agreements can be more easily monitored and enforced. Perhaps as such agreements become more common, it would not be outside the realm of possibility to include provisions relating specifically to broadening of ownership, the recognition of the workers' sweat equity and the reduction of income and wealth inequality.

Establishing a working relationship with the ICEM could be quite advantageous as the Capital Ownership Group continues to pursue its objectives.

International Agencies
Also in the international arena are the world development organizations like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, organizations whose policies, many hold, have contributed to the growing inequality of wealth and income throughout the world. Part of the scope of work for the transnational discussion group has been to explore how such international agencies might be able to encourage broadened ownership by connecting ownership with debt relief or economic development programs, for example. On an encouraging note, over the last couple of years or so, it appears that these and other agencies more fully recognize the reality of income and wealth inequality and the need to successfully address the problem. Both of these organizations have put poverty reduction at the heart of their agendas. Employee ownership now fits well with IMF and World Bank priority areas.

The International Labor Organization (ILO) and the United Nations Development Program are also are trying to deal with the fact that more than one-fifth of the world population lives in extreme poverty. Even just realizing the core labor conventions supported by the ILO would be a major improvement for the world's poorest people. The four international organizations may not be singing the very same song and they may not even be singing from the same songbook, but they are all singing.

While the promotion of employee ownership does not appear to be an established part of the strategies being put forth by these international organizations, they might be more open than they have been in the past to exploring the addition of an employee ownership plank in their poverty reduction initiatives. Could the World Bank and the IMF be persuaded to require exploration of the feasibility of employee ownership for some of their projects? Or at least indicate a preference for employee ownership as a component of their increased emphasis on poverty reduction? Could they potentially work with multinational corporations to encourage them to extend employee ownership as a tool to reduce poverty and income equality? There certainly should be a place for employee ownership in the design of poverty reduction programs.

As COG moves forward, it is abundantly clear that we need to more fully develop our own strategies in order to get our message across to these international agencies and organizations. We need to make a place for COG at that table.

Currency Transaction Taxes
The other item that engendered some discussion among this group was the possible imposition of taxes on currency trades across borders. Currency trades are speculative transactions that can cause fluctuations in exchange rates and possibly threaten the economic stability of countries whose currencies are being traded. There is overwhelming evidence that the lack of stability helped to cause the crises in Southeast Asia, Russia and Brazil.

Taxing such speculative transactions at 0.5% or less would have the effect of curbing the gambling type of speculation and allowing individual countries to have more control over their own currencies and monetary policies. Such a tax would produce revenues estimated at anywhere between $50 billion and $300 billion a year. These could be utilized to provide needed resources to fight global problems such as disease, poverty, hunger and other priorities, including an international fund to assist in the establishment of employee ownership in appropriate situations. Promoting employee ownership would be a long-term tool in the fight against poverty, and a good complement to relief of immediate human disasters. The Capital Ownership Group should determine its position on such a tax and put that before the appropriate national and international bodies.

To be really effective, the adoption and enforcement of such a tax should be coordinated among a number of countries. The United Nations is studying the issue. The International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) has endorsed such a tax. In addition, several countries are discussing the issue in their respective legislative bodies.

Conclusion
As can be seen, there are many arenas where the Capital Ownership Group needs to make its voice heard if it is to successfully put forward its agenda. The biggest question seems to be how do we go about promoting our policies? COG needs to continue to develop a strategy to determine who are the decision-makers, how to get access to those decision-makers, and what are the points of leverage to get COG's message to the right people.