IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/mpifgd/103.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Mitbestimmung im Unternehmensvergleich: Ein Konzept zur Messung des Einflusspotenzials der Arbeitnehmervertreter im mitbestimmten Aufsichtsrat

Author

Listed:
  • Höpner, Martin
  • Müllenborn, Tim

Abstract

In diesem Beitrag schlagen wir einen Index zum Einflusspotenzial der Arbeitnehmervertreter im mitbestimmten Aufsichtsrat vor, der sich aus der Addition von fünf Dummy- Variablen ergibt. Von einem hohen Einflusspotenzial der Arbeitnehmervertreter wird ausgegangen, wenn (1) der Aufsichtsrat hälftig mit Arbeitnehmervertretern besetzt ist, (2) der Aufsichtsrat über ein neutrales Mitglied zur Auflösung von Pattsituationen verfügt, (3) der stellvertretende Aufsichtsratsvorsitzende unternehmensexterner Gewerkschaftsfunktionär ist, (4) ein Gewerkschaftsmitglied zum Arbeitsdirektor bestellt wurde und (5) der Prüfungsausschuss hälftig mit Arbeitnehmervertretern besetzt ist. Entsprechende Daten erheben wir für 82 der 100 größten deutschen Unternehmen. Ein Abgleich mit Strukturmerkmalen der Unternehmen zeigt, dass sich überdurchschnittlich mitbestimmte Unternehmen vor allem innerhalb des Kapitalverflechtungsnetzwerks der 'Deutschland AG' befinden, und dass Mitbestimmungsvermeidung vor allem bei Unternehmen in Familieneigentum vorkommt. Der Index kann in der empirischen Mitbestimmungsforschung eingesetzt werden, um Hypothesen über die Bestandsvoraussetzungen sowie über die sozialen und wirtschaftlichen Wirkungen der Unternehmensmitbestimmung zu testen.

Suggested Citation

  • Höpner, Martin & Müllenborn, Tim, 2010. "Mitbestimmung im Unternehmensvergleich: Ein Konzept zur Messung des Einflusspotenzials der Arbeitnehmervertreter im mitbestimmten Aufsichtsrat," MPIfG Discussion Paper 10/3, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:mpifgd:103
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/39234/1/623662604.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Simon Renaud, 2007. "Dynamic Efficiency of Supervisory Board Codetermination in Germany," LABOUR, CEIS, vol. 21(4‐5), pages 689-712, December.
    2. Werner, Frank & Keller, Berndt, 2009. "Arbeitnehmerbeteiligung in der Europäischen Aktiengesellschaft (SE) - Empirische Befunde und (un-)erwartete Konsequenzen," WSI-Mitteilungen, Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG, vol. 62(8), pages 416-424.
    3. Sebastian Troch, 2009. "Drittelbeteiligung im Aufsichtsrat - Gesetzliche Regelung versus Unternehmenspraxis Ausmaß und Bestimmungsgründe der Umgehung des Drittelbeteiligungsgesetzes in Industrieunternehmen," Working Paper Series in Economics 128, University of Lüneburg, Institute of Economics.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Scholz, Robert, 2021. "Labour in the Board and Good Work: How to Measure and Evidence From Germany," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 32(3), pages 219-243.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Joachim Wagner, 2011. "One-third Codetermination at Company Supervisory Boards and Firm Performance in German Manufacturing Industries: First Direct Evidence from a New Type of Enterprise Data," Schmollers Jahrbuch : Journal of Applied Social Science Studies / Zeitschrift für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften, Duncker & Humblot, Berlin, vol. 131(1), pages 91-106.
    2. John T. Addison & Claus Schnabel, 2011. "Worker Directors: A German Product that Did Not Export?," Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(2), pages 354-374, April.
    3. Balsmeier, Benjamin & Bermig, Andreas & Dilger, Alexander, 2013. "Corporate governance and employee power in the boardroom: An applied game theoretic analysis," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 51-74.
    4. Rapp, Marc Steffen & Wolff, Michael & Hennig, Jan C. & Udoieva, Iuliia, 2019. "Mitbestimmung im Aufsichtsrat und ihre Wirkung auf die Unterenhmensführung: Eine empirische Analyse vor dem Hintergrund der Finanz- und Wirtschaftskrise," Study / edition der Hans-Böckler-Stiftung, Hans-Böckler-Stiftung, Düsseldorf, volume 127, number 424, March.
    5. Joachim Wagner, 2010. "The Research Potential of New Types of Enterprise Data based on Surveys from Official Statistics in Germany," Schmollers Jahrbuch : Journal of Applied Social Science Studies / Zeitschrift für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften, Duncker & Humblot, Berlin, vol. 130(1), pages 133-142.
    6. Aleksandra Gregorič & Thomas Poulsen, 2020. "When Do Employees Choose to Be Represented on the Board of Directors? Empirical Analysis of Board‐Level Employee Representation in Denmark," British Journal of Industrial Relations, London School of Economics, vol. 58(2), pages 241-272, June.
    7. Höpner, Martin & Waclawczyk, Maximilian, 2012. "Opportunismus oder Ungewissheit? Mitbestimmte Unternehmen zwischen Klassenkampf und Produktionsregime," MPIfG Discussion Paper 12/1, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
    8. Franziska Boneberg, 2010. "The Economic Consequences of one-third Codetermination in German Supervisory Boards: First Evidence for the Service Sector from a New Source of Enterprise Data," Working Paper Series in Economics 177, University of Lüneburg, Institute of Economics.
    9. Marc Goergen & Miguel Manjon & Luc Renneboog, 2008. "Is the German system of corporate governance converging towards the Anglo-American model?," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 12(1), pages 37-71, March.
    10. Mark Harcourt & Helen Lam & Richard Croucher, 2015. "The right-to-manage default rule," Industrial Relations Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(3), pages 222-235, May.
    11. Forcillo, Donato, 2017. "Codetermination: the Presence of Workers on the Board. A Depth Analysis," MPRA Paper 81936, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Uwe Jirjahn, 2012. "Non-union worker representation and the closure of establishments: German evidence on the role of moderating factors," Economic and Industrial Democracy, Department of Economic History, Uppsala University, Sweden, vol. 33(1), pages 5-27, February.
    13. Kerstin Lopatta & Katarina Böttcher & Sumit K. Lodhia & Sebastian A. Tideman, 2020. "Parity codetermination at the board level and labor investment efficiency: evidence on German listed firms," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 90(1), pages 57-108, February.
    14. Gregorič, Aleksandra, 2022. "Board-level worker representation," GLO Discussion Paper Series 1136, Global Labor Organization (GLO).
    15. Kerstin Lopatta & Katarina Böttcher & Reemda Jaeschke, 2018. "When labor representatives join supervisory boards: empirical evidence of the relationship between the change to parity codetermination and working capital and operating cash flows," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 88(1), pages 1-39, January.
    16. Boneberg Franziska, 2011. "The Economic Consequences of One-third Co-determination in German Supervisory Boards: First Evidence for the Service Sector from a New Source of Enterprise Data," Journal of Economics and Statistics (Jahrbuecher fuer Nationaloekonomie und Statistik), De Gruyter, vol. 231(3), pages 440-457, June.
    17. Lars Hornuf & Abdulkadir Mohamed & Armin Schwienbacher, 2019. "The Economic Impact of Forming a European Company," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 57(4), pages 659-674, July.
    18. Belot, François & Waxin, Timothée, 2022. "Mandatory employee board representation: Good news for family firms?," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    19. Stefan Petry, 2018. "Mandatory Worker Representation on the Board and Its Effect on Shareholder Wealth," Financial Management, Financial Management Association International, vol. 47(1), pages 25-54, March.
    20. Michael Stollt & Norbert Kluge, 2011. "The potential of employee involvement in the SE to foster the Europeanization of labour relations," Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research, , vol. 17(2), pages 181-191, May.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:zbw:mpifgd:103. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/mpigfde.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.