Renate Weber, Rapporteur. – Mr President, first of all, I would like to thank all the shadows for our excellent cooperation on this file.

Employee financial participation (EFP) is one possible way to achieve our goal to reduce unemployment and ensure sustainable growth and jobs. It has been proved that the social performance of a company that has employee share ownership is 52% higher than in companies which have neither employee stock ownership plans (ESOPs) nor an employee saving plan. Currently, there are some 10 million employee shareholders in Europe and 20 Member States have some sort of EFP incentive regulation.

Nevertheless, the development of EFP is geographically unbalanced within the European Union with a lag of 30 to 40 years between the lead and the late European countries. The explanation resides in the existence or not of adequate legislation and frameworks. In spite of many recommendations that have been issued since 1991, not much has been done in terms of approaching the topic at EU level through legislation or comprehensive public policies.

Therefore this report aims at creating momentum again for EFP by, first of all, emphasising the potential of these schemes for both workers and their employers. Among the advantages of EFP schemes, I can mention more sustainable governance, better business continuity and access to capital for SMEs, better social dialogue and quality of work, more fidelity and motivation, less absenteeism and better skills development.

Secondly, the report stresses the risks and the loopholes which need to be tackled while developing EFP. We must provide guarantees to protect employees and companies alike. Each EFP scheme should offer a wide range of tools for the company to design the most relevant scheme according to their size or activity. At the same time, any EFP scheme must be developed with social partners, employees and relevant stakeholders. It must remain voluntary for employees and should be based on their informed consent, fully aware of their entitlements, obligations and risks. Training should be offered to the employees in this respect. The EFP should never replace salaries and no discrimination should ever be accepted relating to the employee’s decision to join these schemes or not.

Thirdly, the report suggests a number of measures which could be taken at Union level. The Commission and Member States should design frameworks for the development of such schemes throughout Europe, they should promote financial education, raise awareness among companies and employees and look into developing fiscal incentives for companies which would like to expand transnationally. Synergies should be developed with programmes and for efforts carried out by the Commission whose aim is to improve access to capital, especially for SMEs. We mention the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, COSME and the social economy, but also encourage different DGs to work together, like DG Employment, DG FISMA and DG GROW.

I hope that Parliament’s vote will this time be followed by a proper action on behalf of the Commission.