President. − The next item is the report by Phil Bennion, on behalf of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, on Financial participation of employees in companies’ proceeds (2013/2127(INI)) (A7-0465/2013).

  Phil Bennion, rapporteur. − Mr President, employee financial participation in companies’ proceeds (EFP) is a concrete way for companies to share success.

It is a long-supported liberal vision, set out by Joe Grimmond in the 1960s and taken forward by many successful companies, such as John Lewis in the United Kingdom. It is a practical example of the inclusive growth referred to in the Europe 2020 strategy, and it can empower citizens through employment by allowing them to play an integral role in the company for which they work.

Across the EU there are many different EFP models, but the main ones are profit-sharing, individual employee share ownerships and employee stock ownership plans. The category or model chosen will often depend on the type and size of the company as well as the aims of starting such a scheme.

The concept of employee financial participation offers many advantages. It can assist in the transfer of a company to employees when a single successor cannot be found: this is particularly useful in the case of SMEs and micro-enterprises. It promotes sustainability and long-termism in decision-making, which can benefit both employees and employers. For employees, it can enhance their commitment to the future success of the company and can give them an opportunity to participate in governance. For employers, it can encourage investment in training by increasing the company’s ability to retain skilled workers in the long term. There can also be improvements in employee job satisfaction and motivation, which can in turn boost productivity. Despite these benefits, participation in EFP schemes varies between different sectors, company sizes and Member States and also according to employee demographics.

Europe lags behind other regions of the world, particularly the United States, in this field. In the report I have looked at the reasons for this and at the potential obstacles to EFP take-up in the Union.

Firstly, there is a lack of information about how EFP schemes operate and can be implemented. Answering these questions can be costly and burdensome for companies, in particular SMEs and micro-enterprises.

Secondly, there is a lack of national legislative incentive measures in some Member States.

Thirdly, EFP schemes are affected by national taxation regimes. The taxation elements of this report were, of course, supplied by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, not by the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs.

Lastly, companies which operate cross-border are faced with a multitude of EFP schemes and national legislative provisions.

The report makes a number of recommendations to overcome these obstacles and increase the number of EFP schemes operated in the Union. For example, best practices and examples of EFP schemes and incentive measures should be shared among Member States and interested bodies. This could lead to mutual recognition of the schemes, which could simplify the process for cross-border companies.

The report makes reference to the current pilot project and to the benefits that a virtual EFP centre and the tax-rate calculator could bring in terms of augmenting available information. These propositions would be of particular use to companies operating cross-border.

We also call for the Commission to carry out an impact assessment on a possible ‘29th regime’, alongside Member States’ national regimes. This regime should operate outside the areas of national competence, such as taxation, should be voluntary and should be based on a set of best-practice examples for each type and size of company.

In addition, we recommend that a set of basic guidelines for successful EFP schemes be developed. Firstly, the decision to implement a scheme should be taken at company level. Participation should be in addition to remuneration and employment rights; it should be voluntary, and employees should be provided with all the relevant information in order to make an informed decision. Lastly, if the model involves shares, collective ownership is a positive option.

Finally the report proposes the creation of a single information portal setting out the advantages, disadvantages, potential incentives and mechanisms of EFP schemes.

I hope these recommendations will be taken forward by the Commission and interested organisations.

Procedura catch-the-eye.

  Sari Essayah (PPE). - Arvoisa puhemies, totesimme työllisyyden ja sosiaaliasioiden valiokunnassa, että työntekijöiden taloudellinen osallistuminen ja nämä järjestelmät vaihtelevat erittäin paljon maasta toiseen, koska ne ovat hyvin riippuvaisia kansallisista säännöksistä ja ehdoista, muun muassa verotuksesta.

Eri malleja käytetään myös eri tarkoituksiin: osalla pyritään osallistumaan yrityksen päätöksentekoon ja osalla esimerkiksi erilaisiin investointiohjelmiin, esimerkiksi investointioptioiden kautta, jolloin on mahdollista hyötyä yrityksen menestymisestä. EU-tason lainsäädäntötoimien toteuttaminen ei tällä alalla ole mielestäni tavoiteltavaa, vaan parhaiden käytäntöjen vaihtaminen ja suositusten antaminen riittävät.

On mielestäni myös pidettävä mielessä se, että taloudellinen osallistuminen on aina vapaaehtoista – niin työntekijän puolelta kuin myös yrityksen puolelta luoda tällaisia järjestelmiä. Erilaisia suosituksia ja parhaita käytäntöjä voidaan vaihtaa, koska kaikkien työntekijöiden, ei vain ylimmän johdon, sitouttaminen ja kannustaminen osallisuuteen omasta työpaikasta on varmasti sekä työn laatua että myös yrityksen menestystä lisäävä asia.

  Evelyn Regner (S&D). - Herr Präsident! Ein Dankeschön an den Berichterstatter für die konstruktive Art und Weise der Zusammenarbeit bei der Erstellung des Berichts.

Finanzielle Mitarbeiterbeteiligung ist ein gutes Beispiel dafür, dass wir in Europa noch einiges voneinander lernen können. Es gibt ausgezeichnete Beispiele für Modelle der finanziellen Mitarbeiterbeteiligung – ich denke an die Stahlstiftung in Österreich, an die sociedades laborales in Spanien, um zwei Beispiele zu nennen. Allerdings ist es mir als sozialdemokratische Schattenberichterstatterin wichtig, darauf hinzuweisen, dass sehr wohl einige Bedingungen eingehalten werden sollten, wenn solche Modelle eingeführt werden. Dazu gehört, dass die Beteiligung freiwillig und für alle Beschäftigten zugänglich sein muss, dass die Sozialpartner entsprechend miteinbezogen werden sollen und dass die Gewinnbeteiligung immer nur ergänzend zum Grundgehalt erfolgen soll. In diesem Sinne denke ich, wenn wir diese Elemente miteinander kombinieren, können wir schon einiges für die Zukunft auf den Weg bringen, allerdings Schritt für Schritt und nicht überhapps, wie man auf Österreichisch sagen würde.

  Ruža Tomašić (ECR). - Poštovani g. predsjedniče, podržavam ovu inicijativu jer držim kako će omogućiti bolje poslovanje europskim poslodavcima, tvrtke učiniti dugoročno stabilnijima, a zaposlenike kroz interesnu sferu dodatno vezati za tvrtke u kojima rade i tako ih učiniti motiviranijima i učinkovitijima. Drago mi je da izvjestitelj stavlja naglasak na opasnost od zloporabe ovog modela jer ona realno postoji. Kako bismo eliminirali tu opasnost, modeli financijskog sudjelovanja zaposlenika moraju biti u potpunosti usklađeni s nacionalnim zakonodavstvima i poreznim propisima, temeljeni na dobrovoljnoj bazi i ponuđeni zaposlenicima uz sve potrebne informacije. Unatoč naporima za koje vjerujem da će biti uloženi, moramo biti svjesni činjenice da su radni odnosi različito uređeni diljem Europske unije i da ovaj model u nekim državama članicama neće biti lako primjenjiv. Također držim da apsolutno moramo poštovati kompetencije nacionalnih država u sferi porezne politike i da Komisija ne bi trebala imati pravo upliva u oporezivanje financijskog sudjelovanja zaposlenika.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D). - Dėkoju pranešėjui už įdomų pranešimą. Iš tikrųjų, darbuotojų finansinis dalyvavimas dalijantis įmonių pajamomis yra pažangi ir efektyvi priemonė, kurios pagalba darbuotojams yra ne tik suteikiama papildoma finansinė nauda už darbą įmonėje, bet kartu darbuotojai yra įtraukiami ir į įmonių strateginių sprendimų priėmimą. Tai, be abejo, sustiprina įmonėje dirbančių darbuotojų suinteresuotumą prisidėti prie įmonės veiklos gerinimo, didina jų motyvaciją darbui ir kartu suteikia teises naudotis sėkmingos įmonės veikimo nauda. Deja, skirtingų šalių praktikoje ši įmonių valdymo priemonė vis dar nėra tolygiai išvystyta, todėl Europos Sąjungos lygiu būtina ir prasminga šia tema diskutuoti, ieškoti ir siūlyti būdus, kaip situaciją valstybėse narėse keisti, kokie modeliai būtų patys priimtiniausi. Žinoma, aš pritariu tik savanoriškam darbuotojų dalyvavimui ir taip pat manau, kad būtina kalbėti apie tokio dalyvavimo riziką, galimus pavojus darbuotojams kaip silpnesnei darbo santykių šaliai, bei būtinos darbuotojų apsaugos priemones galimam nepageidaujamam poveikiui išvengti.

  Krisztina Morvai (NI). - Amikor olvastam ezt a jelentést a vállalatok bevételeiből való munkavállalói részesedésről, eszembe jutott, hogy egy pár hete Budapesten egy könyvesboltban jártam. Véletlenül sem egy kicsi családi vállalkozásnál, hiszen olyanok már alig léteznek, mert bekebelezik ugye a nagy láncok a könyvesboltokat is. És ott egy eladóval beszélgettem egy kicsit, és a következőt mondta: hogy van az Krisztina, hogy a mi tulajdonosunk, ennek a hatalmas könyvesbolt hálózatnak a tulajdonosa szerepel a magyar milliárdosokról szóló könyvlistán. És ugyanakkor mi meg, akik itt dolgozunk, és ezt a profitot termeljük neki, 80 000 Ft-ot, azaz kb. 250 eurót keresünk diplomás, főiskolát vagy egyetemet végzett emberekként. Úgy gondolnánk igazságosnak, hogy ebből a hatalmas profitból valamennzire azért mi is részesedjünk. Lám, nem volt annyira valóságtól elrugaszkodott az elképzelés, érdemes tanulmányozni ezt a jelentést.

(Fine della procedura catch-the-eye)

  Janez Potočnik, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, on behalf of the Commission, I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Phil Bennion, the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs and the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, and the European Parliament as a whole, for the work done on the report and the resolution on employee financial participation. The resolution provides a comprehensive overview of concrete initiatives which should be considered by the Member States and by the Commission to encourage and facilitate employee financial participation across the European Union.

More than 30 years of research support the conclusion that companies that are partly, or entirely, owned by their employees are more profitable, create more jobs and pay more taxes than their competitors without employee share ownership. Employee share ownership also strengthens corporate governance and has a positive impact on employee motivation and also on retention. Also, companies with employee share ownership do not relocate as easily as some other companies do. On the contrary, companies partially owned by employees are more strongly embedded in local communities and regions. Furthermore, since employees are long-term stakeholders par excellence, broadening employee shareholding is also a source of long-term financing which can help to stabilise capital markets.

The resolution also rightly emphasises the particular importance of employee share ownership for small and medium-sized enterprises. SMEs constitute the vital texture of our economy, and employee share ownership can help sustain the success of commercial and social enterprises. For all these reasons I welcome this resolution as an important contribution to the execution of the Commission’s inclusive growth strategy to ensure that we emerge faster and stronger from the economic and financial crisis. The Commission takes note of all the recommendations in the resolution, which comes at a very timely moment indeed.

The Commission is now implementing a pilot project on the promotion of employee ownership and participation. The purpose of this project is, firstly, to identify the reasons underpinning the wide divergences in approaches across Member States. We will focus on the main drivers behind the cost and administrative complexities that are hampering a large-scale introduction of financial participation schemes, in particular in cross-border scenarios. Secondly, we will analyse in detail the possible regulatory and non-regulatory actions that might be proposed or undertaken by the Commission. It goes without saying that we will consider Parliament’s recommendations very carefully.

  President. − The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Tuesday, 14 January 2014.