员工持股的本体论:信托企业、直营企业和合作企业的比较分析

David Wren, R. Ridley-Duff
{"title":"员工持股的本体论:信托企业、直营企业和合作企业的比较分析","authors":"David Wren, R. Ridley-Duff","doi":"10.5947/jeod.2021.003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Each academic discipline wrestles with framing objects of study within its field. This paper is a reflexive analysis of the ontology of employee ownership (EO) and employee-owned businesses (EOBs) based on ten cases from two PhDs and two post-doctoral studies. We found that normative definitions of EO not only fail to reflect complexities uncovered during fieldwork but also obscure how EOBs are created and developed. We set out five primary questions that researchers need to resolve before framing a study of EO, and then investigate how those questions are resolved under company, cooperative and trust law. Our findings reveal variations in EOB realities that problematise the assumption that “employment status” defines EOBs. We found EOBs that selectively include or exclude front line employees from EO based on employment contract differences, and others that include front line workers based on a “contract for services”, rather than a “contract of service”. As a result, a revised view of “the employed” is required, based on workers’ capacity (either through employment contracts or membership arrangements) to selfmanage their labour in a shared enterprise. This broad view of “the employed” using Vanek’s concept of “labour-managed firms” (LMFs) is a more precise and inclusive framing concept that brings worker cooperatives fully within the scope of EO. We conclude that constructionist philosophies offer the best scope for knowledge creation for four of our five primary questions.","PeriodicalId":54132,"journal":{"name":"International Review of Entrepreneurship","volume":"5 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ontologies of Employee Ownership: A Comparative Analysis of Trust-Owned, Directly-Owned and Cooperatively-Owned Enterprises\",\"authors\":\"David Wren, R. Ridley-Duff\",\"doi\":\"10.5947/jeod.2021.003\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Each academic discipline wrestles with framing objects of study within its field. This paper is a reflexive analysis of the ontology of employee ownership (EO) and employee-owned businesses (EOBs) based on ten cases from two PhDs and two post-doctoral studies. We found that normative definitions of EO not only fail to reflect complexities uncovered during fieldwork but also obscure how EOBs are created and developed. We set out five primary questions that researchers need to resolve before framing a study of EO, and then investigate how those questions are resolved under company, cooperative and trust law. Our findings reveal variations in EOB realities that problematise the assumption that “employment status” defines EOBs. We found EOBs that selectively include or exclude front line employees from EO based on employment contract differences, and others that include front line workers based on a “contract for services”, rather than a “contract of service”. As a result, a revised view of “the employed” is required, based on workers’ capacity (either through employment contracts or membership arrangements) to selfmanage their labour in a shared enterprise. This broad view of “the employed” using Vanek’s concept of “labour-managed firms” (LMFs) is a more precise and inclusive framing concept that brings worker cooperatives fully within the scope of EO. We conclude that constructionist philosophies offer the best scope for knowledge creation for four of our five primary questions.\",\"PeriodicalId\":54132,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Review of Entrepreneurship\",\"volume\":\"5 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-09-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Review of Entrepreneurship\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5947/jeod.2021.003\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Review of Entrepreneurship","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5947/jeod.2021.003","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

每一门学科都努力在其领域内构建研究对象。本文基于两名博士和两名博士后的十个案例,对员工所有制和员工所有企业的本体进行了反思性分析。我们发现,eob的规范定义不仅不能反映在实地工作中发现的复杂性,而且模糊了eob是如何创建和发展的。我们列出了研究人员在构建EO研究框架之前需要解决的五个主要问题,然后研究如何在公司法、合作法和信托法下解决这些问题。我们的研究结果揭示了EOB实际情况的变化,这些变化对“就业状况”定义EOB的假设提出了问题。我们发现,eob根据雇佣合同差异有选择地将一线员工纳入或排除在eob之外,还有一些eob根据“服务合同”而不是“服务合同”将一线员工纳入eob。因此,需要根据工人(通过雇佣合同或会员安排)在共享企业中自我管理其劳动的能力,对“受雇者”进行修订。使用Vanek的“劳动力管理企业”(lfs)概念的“被雇佣者”的广义观点是一个更加精确和包容的框架概念,它将工人合作社完全纳入了经济学的范围。我们的结论是,建构主义哲学为我们五个主要问题中的四个提供了最好的知识创造范围。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Ontologies of Employee Ownership: A Comparative Analysis of Trust-Owned, Directly-Owned and Cooperatively-Owned Enterprises
Each academic discipline wrestles with framing objects of study within its field. This paper is a reflexive analysis of the ontology of employee ownership (EO) and employee-owned businesses (EOBs) based on ten cases from two PhDs and two post-doctoral studies. We found that normative definitions of EO not only fail to reflect complexities uncovered during fieldwork but also obscure how EOBs are created and developed. We set out five primary questions that researchers need to resolve before framing a study of EO, and then investigate how those questions are resolved under company, cooperative and trust law. Our findings reveal variations in EOB realities that problematise the assumption that “employment status” defines EOBs. We found EOBs that selectively include or exclude front line employees from EO based on employment contract differences, and others that include front line workers based on a “contract for services”, rather than a “contract of service”. As a result, a revised view of “the employed” is required, based on workers’ capacity (either through employment contracts or membership arrangements) to selfmanage their labour in a shared enterprise. This broad view of “the employed” using Vanek’s concept of “labour-managed firms” (LMFs) is a more precise and inclusive framing concept that brings worker cooperatives fully within the scope of EO. We conclude that constructionist philosophies offer the best scope for knowledge creation for four of our five primary questions.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信