Employee participation in company management

Employee participation in company management

to address post-pandemic challenges

Augusto Cocchioni

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface

1. Summary
2. Introduction
3. Participatory culture to mitigate the negative effects of the system
4. Main definitions of participation
5. The origin and development of the method of participation
6. Participation in the European legal system
7. The current situation in Italy
8. Participation in small businesses
9. The culture of participation as a resource to be distributed
10. Conclusion
11. Bibliography

Afterword

PREFACE

 Employee participation; an old idea that is relevant again in times of crisis

 Francesco Paolo Capone

the letter of the Secretary General of the UGL

 The idea of ​​participation, i.e. the active presence of employees in company management processes, is a very old idea. It is known in many forms: from the institutionalized information of employees and consultation with them to full-fledged co-management. The latter means the active participation of workers in company bodies through employee representatives, which enables them to participate in decision-making mechanisms and strategic decision-making and to take part in economic results and the redistribution of company profits.

Thus, the role of the worker is transformed: he is no longer merely an executor of the instructions given by the manager, who has nothing to do with the management and fate of the company, but a subject who forms an integral part of the production process. As a result, on the one hand, he is more protected against company decisions, on the other hand, he is entrusted with greater responsibility and is aware that competitiveness is an essential condition for the survival and growth of the company that employs him.

This idea has been used in various ways for years, even decades, in Central Europe, Germany, but also in the Netherlands and the Czech Republic, for example. The European Union has also shown an active interest in employee participation through the creation of the European Joint Stock Company and the European Works Council. Despite everything, the idea met with great resistance in many EU member states, not only from the business sector, but also from the trade union side, because this attitude presupposes a change in employment relations, since by making the employee an actual partner of the company, it changes the usual industrial relations between companies and employees scheme.

Despite the fact that Article 46 of the Italian Constitution recognizes "the right of employees to contribute to the management of companies in the manner and within the framework defined by law", this idea has never taken root in Italy to any significant extent.

On the other hand, we, the UGL Trade Union — then known as CISNAL — have been supporting employee participation since our foundation in 1950, both as a means of economic development and social progress and justice.

The validity of the idea of ​​participation has been proven even more in connection with the globalization of our time. Participation strengthens the relationship between business, work and the area, and creates mutual responsibility between entrepreneurs and employees, thus providing an antidote to the problems weighing on Western workers: corporate crises, delocalization, and social dumping.

In addition, the changes that have occurred in recent years due to the development of information and communication technologies have contributed to overcoming the traditional division between entrepreneur and employee and creating new, mixed employee statuses.

In addition, the economic and social effects of the Covid-19 pandemic have added to the already existing challenges and problems related to globalization, making the spread of the participatory model even more necessary.

It happens countless times — and it has happened in the past — that a company in a crisis situation is a so-called workers buyout on is going through. This is a process in which the employees of a company in crisis save their jobs by using their own severance pay and savings to buy up the shares of the company that employs them, transforming it into a cooperative and thus saving it from bankruptcy.

This is a solution that has made it possible to preserve hundreds of companies and thousands of jobs worldwide, ensuring the continuity of production and employment, and ultimately improving the productivity of the company concerned. The term, as is often the case, is of Anglo-Saxon origin, which is due to the fact that such initiatives were primarily observed in the United States during times of crisis. However, similar solutions have already been used in Europe and Latin America.

In fact, it is nothing more than a form of employee participation that is carried out in extreme cases and in the event of a clear crisis that has already occurred. In other words, the participation of employees in company management — which exists in various forms, from information on company strategies to joint decision-making and, as it happens in this case, all the way to co-ownership — provides an effective solution to company crises from both an economic and social point of view. .

However, there is no need to wait for crises to occur in order to apply the tools of participation.

The current production, economic and social situation throughout Europe makes it urgent to promote the participation of employees in industrial decisions in large companies as well as in small and medium-sized enterprises. All this in order to create a system that is able to unite all actors of the supply chain and can give new strength to the implementation of the European Social Model, including by reforming industrial relations.

Employee participation is a model that has been somewhat forgotten in recent times, but at the same time it represents a real strength of Europe. It provides a form of social capitalism that is an alternative to ultra-liberal capitalism and that can guarantee wider prosperity and thereby withstand long-term political, economic and, as we have seen recently, health crises. Furthermore, it creates a society that is economically stronger and socially more cohesive and inclusive.

It is therefore necessary to encourage participation not only by expanding knowledge and skills related to the topic, but also by effective and targeted tax incentives . It is an effective tool that can be essential for the recovery of the entire economy and society.

To the extent that companies, previously in order to overcome globalization and now the Covid crisis, invest greater and more innovative resources than before and demand duties from their employees, and expect even more motivation and commitment to the fate of the company from them, as well as relying more and more on their expertise in order to achieve their results, it is logical that they should not only share knowledge, strategic decisions and choices with them, but ultimately also the economic results of management. This is a change that, as can be deduced from the present study by Augusto Cocchioni, belongs to the natural order of things and is as correct as it is necessary.

1. Summary

In recent decades, our economic system has transformed businesses into a means of short-term wealth accumulation, which, by extracting income from production factors, cause the general weakening of the system, embedded in its social decline.

One of the most worrying phenomena is the continuous growth of inequalities in the recent period. The pandemic further accelerated and exacerbated these trends. Such an unbalanced system is a problem for everyone.

To overcome this situation, we need to find new solutions that are able to reconcile higher productivity with equality and the provision of job opportunities.

The participation of employees in the management of enterprises and the spread of this culture is one of the most important responses we can give to the crisis of our economic system in order to resolve its contradictions and transform them into new opportunities.

In order to properly manage the constant changes and challenges of the near future, we need to create organizations and companies that are able to integrate competitiveness, the preservation and protection of jobs, long-term sustainability, and strong ties to local communities.

We need to create a business environment that stimulates continuous dialogue between companies, employees and local communities. In order to achieve this, the idea of ​​employee participation must be included in training for companies and employees. Furthermore, it is necessary to develop management and corporate governance competencies that will help us create a new way of doing business that focuses on employee participation.

It is necessary to create a generation of entrepreneurs and employees - even in the case of small businesses - who know, appreciate and embrace these values, so that they can later pass them on from their company and workplace to society as a whole.

2. Introduction

This short paper was created with the aim of providing the reader with a simple and easy-to-read guide to the highly topical topic of employee participation in corporate governance. Its purpose is to inform you about an issue of great importance, which is still little known to many.

The study succinctly analyzes some of the major flaws in our economic system, showing why employee participation is one of the primary and most effective ways to offset the negative effects. It describes the main definitions of participation, presents its origin and development history, reviews the relevant norms found in the European and Italian legal system, and last but not least analyzes how participation can be implemented in the case of small businesses and what advantages it can bring.

3. Participatory culture to mitigate the negative effects of the system

In the past decades, our economic system was dominated by a business culture whose sole purpose was to maximize profits for shareholders, de facto excluding any other social role and responsibility. At the same time, a corporate management culture where the primary way to create value was to increase the company's stock market value, rather than the production and distribution of goods and services, spread more and more. Meanwhile, companies were reorganized to prioritize financial investment over technological investment, replace fixed costs with variable costs (through outsourcing, downsizing, relocation, etc.), and pursue only short-term strategies.

This transformed businesses into a means of short-term wealth accumulation, which, by subtracting income from the factors of production, caused the general weakening of the economic system, thus contributing to its decline. The result was — not surprisingly — a clear and continuous decrease in wages and demand for labor, as well as the creation of delocalized companies that were separated from local communities and the social tasks associated with them.

All of this has resulted in an ever-increasing vicious circle of lower and lower economic growth, increasing job insecurity and stagnant profits since the 2008 crisis. The most worrying aspect of all is the continuous growth of inequalities in recent decades. Economic growth only benefited those who were already more affluent. The rich got richer through the perverse mechanism of redistribution from the bottom up.

Something is clearly not working in a system that continually takes social value away from communities. This results in an impoverishment of the overall social heritage that is not very different from what is happening to the environment and the planet. The free market has had a positive impact on society as a whole and has brought significant progress worldwide, but the system is no longer functioning. The economic crisis of 2008 seems to have been the turning point.

The pandemic further accelerated and exacerbated these trends. The consequence of increasing digitization will be an ever-increasing accumulation and redistribution of profits among those who own the technologies. If the post-pandemic recovery will continue to take place only in the spirit of increasing efficiency and productivity, then these inequalities will not be offset.

A system so unbalanced for decades has been a problem for everyone. Growing economic inequality is not only unjust, but also leads to crime, political instability, insecurity, and loss of trust. In order to solve the situation, we need to find new solutions that reconcile increasing productivity with equality and job opportunities.

In many authoritative circles, the participation of employees in the management of enterprises and their share in profits are beginning to be viewed positively as one of the best methods for curbing and mitigating the negative effects of the established system. This would create the necessary counterbalances to ensure that employees have an influence from the start on the decisions of those who hold the capital and decision-making power within the accumulation system. In addition, employee-led businesses generate greater employment growth, offer higher wages to their workers, and maintain ties to local communities.

participatory governance , businesses can and should contribute significantly to a more socially sustainable economy. In general, a culture of compassion would allow the logic of accumulation to be transcended in favor of employee participation. Because overcoming the inequalities experienced in business life also means dealing with social inequalities, all with the knowledge that the social structure is a resource available to everyone.

4. Main definitions of participation

The employee participation in corporate governance refers to any corporate governance model in which employees and their representatives influence the decisions of the enterprise and in some cases share in its economic results. The methods of implementing participation are many and varied. From the simplest and most basic types of information exchange and consultation to institutionalized forms such as the direct presence of employee members in works councils or supervisory boards. The different types of practical implementation of participation can be defined in many ways. Below we summarize the main examples in order to distinguish between each type.

Formal and informal participation

One distinction that can be used is:

• informal participation is what takes place between entrepreneurs and employees in small businesses, and between middle managers and employees in certain departments and offices of larger enterprises,
• and formal or institutionalized participation is the one that takes place through representation in the company's governance bodies.

Institutionalized participation can be traced back to four types.

• The presence of employee representatives in corporate management bodies — the so-called "supervisory committees" — which have a management and control function in strategic matters, as well as an important right of veto. This type of participation is called joint decision and/or joint decision-making, or even strategic participation.
• Joint committees consisting of representatives of the employees and the company, the so-called existence of dual commissions. These bodies perform information and consultation tasks.
• The presence of employee representatives in the management of the resources of the supplementary pension system (the so-called second pillar) and the management of supplementary health care services
• The so-called the existence of bilateral bodies dealing with various aspects of social policy, such as scholarships, unemployment income support and others; they are an important part of the so-called "second prosperity".

Direct and indirect participation

Another important distinction must be made between direct (or organizational) and indirect (or representational) participation.

Direct participation consists of different types of initiatives through which management directly consults with employees or entrusts employees with the way work is organized. This is based on professional criteria and people's technical skills. It is implemented with the involvement of employees and aims to improve work processes.

Indirect (or representative) participation, on the other hand, is realized by involving the elected representatives of the employees in the company's decision-making process. Together with the capital owners, they are members of the management bodies, where working conditions and the relationships between these conditions and company decisions are determined. This is what we mean when we talk about industrial democracy, which takes place inside the company, as distinguished from economic democracy, which takes place outside the company.

The types of indirect participation can be defined as follows:

• high intensity or strong if it is achieved through co-management, joint decision-making, joint decision-making, or supervisory boards (also known as organic participation);
• medium intensity when limited to information and consultation rights;
• or weak if forms of participation with little real influence are present.

Economic and financial participation

Another important classification is that which distinguishes between economic and financial participation.

Economic participation includes various bonuses to employees based on the company's objectives and results, such as:

• the performance or participation bonus,
• profit sharing and stock options,
• and other types of special bonuses.

The most common versions are the so-called performance bonuses or performance bonuses (also known as variable pay or flexible pay) calculated on the basis of productivity and quality indicators.

Another version of economic participation is financial participation, which can be implemented:

• by rewarding employees with company shares;
• the so-called a workers' buyout , during which employees become its owners in the event of a company crisis;
• through pension funds that supplement the state pension.

Strategic, organizational and operational participation

Another useful division is to distinguish between three levels and/or purposes of participation. Thus, we can distinguish three categories from each other:

• Strategic participation

It means the involvement of employees in the main decisions related to the future of the enterprise, with particular regard to decisions related to investments in factories or plants, as well as production and management models. Historically, this has been through specific legislation (such as Germany's Mitbestimmung) or ownership (such as diffused share ownership in the US or co-operative ownership in Italy) or through an employee pension fund with shares (such as the Chrysler UAW-affiliated VEBA happened in the case of the fund, was formed in 2009).

• Organizational participation

Employees means the day-to-day operation of the enterprise and the involvement of the management in decisions affecting the production processes. This can be done in a number of ways, for example through joint committees with different powers, including management and trade union representatives, or through consultations with employees (or their local representatives) on specific topics. In Italy, organizational participation was realized primarily in the large industrial companies of the 1990s through joint committees dealing with the issue of environmental protection, safety and work organization. The Italian experience is generally mixed.

• Operational participation

It means the direct participation of employees in the management of everyday tasks, so it primarily refers to the organization of factory work. The European Foundation in Dublin has been comprehensively studying this type of participation since the second half of the 1990s through the EPOC and EWON surveys on new forms of European work organization, paying particular attention to "delegation by purpose" and "group work".

External (or extra-corporate) and internal (or organic) involvement

A final definition worth highlighting distinguishes between:

• external or extra-company participation, which takes place outside the company, through the presence of representatives of the social partners in public institutions;
• and internal or organic corporate participation, which means the presence of representatives of the parties in the collective management bodies of the company.

5. The origin and development of the method of participation

The idea of ​​participation and systems of economic and industrial democracy first began to take shape in Europe after the First World War. The representation of employees in the supervisory boards of large companies (co-management) was first introduced in Germany during the Weimar Republic. In 1918, in British municipal companies, committees were established, including representatives of employees and employers.

Certain forms of participation were recognized in Austria in 1919, in Germany and Czechoslovakia in 1920, and earlier in Russia in 1917. After the Second World War, employee participation was recognized as a fundamental right in some constitutions, along with the right to organize and collective bargaining.

In the early 1950s, co-management was enforced in the German system through several federal laws that affected the following two areas:

• employee participation in company bodies,
• employees' information and consultation rights as basic elements and prerequisites for joint decision-making.

In 1951, an equal distribution of employee and shareholder representatives was ordered in the supervisory boards of coal and steel companies employing at least 1,000 people. The representatives of the employees were elected by the general assembly of shareholders from among the candidates of the trade unions. This was followed by the 1968 law, which made it possible to extend joint decision-making to other companies, so that later, in 1976, we could arrive at the introduction of a quasi-equal corporate governance model. In this system, employees and shareholders elect an equal number of representatives, and the chairman of the general assembly is elected by the latter.

Another example of participation is the model used in Yugoslavia in the early 1950s. This was one of the most mature types of workers' self-management, which also included the extensive and mandatory establishment of workers' councils.

In Hungary, the self-organized workers' councils played a decisive role in the uprising of 1956, which managed to keep the rights they had fought for even after the revolution, and which later remained the only counterweights of the political system.

In Italy, early examples of employee participation in company management date back to the years after the First World War, as happened, for example, in the case of FIAT in August 1919. Subsequently, in 1921, the Giolitti government attempted to regulate these new cases with a bill that provided for inspection committees composed of workers with powers of information and consultation.

The first real legal recognition of the so-called Works Councils was Act No. 375 of 02.02.1944. It was done within the framework of the Decree of the Socialization of the Italian Social Republic (Decreto sulla Socializzazione della Repubblica Sociale Italiana), which entrusted the workers with various tasks, such as:

• helping the entrepreneur in the management of the company,
• participation in the general meeting of shareholders with the same number of votes as the capital owners,
• participation in the board of directors in a number equal to the number of capital representatives.

The measure was later repealed by Comitato di Liberazione Nazionale

In 1948, Article 46 was introduced into the Constitution of the Italian Republic, which recognizes the right of employees to participate in the management of companies in the manner and within the framework defined by law. However, this part of the constitution has not been applied in practice to date.

Starting from the period after the Second World War, various forms of participation can be observed in Italy, such as:

• the workers' councils ( consigli operai ) around Turin, in the period immediately following the First World War, are based on the logic of resistance and conflict, and therefore reject cooperation within the company and prefer confrontation between entrepreneurs and workers;
• cooperatives , which were often also born with the intention of resistance, and later moved in the direction of participation methodologies ;
• short-lived period of works councils ( Consigli di Gestione
• and Adriano Olivetti's pioneering social enterprise initiatives, which simultaneously focused on work organization, corporate welfare, and urban development.

The end of works councils after the war and the stalling of the development of worker participation in the following decades can be attributed primarily to the fact that most trade unions opposed non-antagonistic industrial relations between workers and capitalists. In recent decades, a way of looking at the relationship between the capitalist and the working class, based on opposites, has spread, which strongly hinders the acceptance of the existence of a kind of common interest between workers and entrepreneurs. Coupled with this was the entrepreneurs' mistrust of the trade unions, which are almost entirely opposed to businesses and the capitalist system.

From the 1980s, neoliberal economic theories began to gain ground, accompanied by the increasingly widespread use of new technologies, the appearance of reward systems based on individual goals and the gradual reorganization of business ownership from entrepreneurs to the financial world. Because of all this, the exchange of ideas about the participation of employees in company management has lost momentum.

This brings us to the present day, when economic and employment data clearly show that it is time to talk about participation again. The time has come for a new beginning, in the form of a new development model based on the cooperation between workers and businesses, which carries with it the opportunity to pay more attention to the communities and the area. Meanwhile, transcending the current class struggle between capitalists and workers, which is completely out of date compared to today.

6. Participation in the European legal system

For decades, the European Union has been conducting intensive regulatory activities covering the various forms of participation, which range from the right to information and consultation to the governance and financial participation through employee share ownership.

The issue was regulated several times by the EU legislators, all the while keeping in mind the form of co-management developed in Germany, the Mitbestimmung.

The various directives and regulations mainly regulated the right to information and consultation, with the aim of unifying the different national norms at the Community level. However, they did all this while failing to implement the "strong" form of employee participation that can also be observed in Germany, i.e. organic participation in the Union as a whole.

The European Community's work in this field has developed since 1970 in two ways:

1. one for industrial relations law,
2. the other is related to company law.

1) The first type includes the 1980 proposal for a directive, known as Vredeling, on information and consultation of employees of multinational enterprises and groups of enterprises, and Directive 94/45/EC on European Works Councils for employees of Community-level enterprises and groups of enterprises information and consultation with them.

Participation appears to be one of the central elements of European social policy, which is based on:

• on the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,
• in the Community Charter on the Basic Social Rights of Employees,
• and the European Social Map.

the Community Charter serves as a general reference regarding adequate information, consultation and participation of employees. the Social Charter mentions the "right to information and consultation" (Article 21) and the "right to participate". The issue has been regulated by various directives since 1970, including the 1994/45/EC directive, which established Works Councils (EÜT) to represent employees.

There is therefore no shortage of directives protecting the "right to information and communication". However, the situation is different in terms of the number of directives regulating "organic participation".

2) The second type of regulation concerns company law. The purpose of the norms governing the structure of the European Joint Stock Company and the joint stock companies of the member states is to collectively introduce certain forms of employee participation. the European Joint Stock Company ( Societas Europaea, SE ) does not propose a single model, but several procedures for how employee participation can be implemented within the company. The regulation is uniform

it was created avoiding solutions, as each member state has a different system of industrial relations, so the same companies can be of different sizes and have different needs, depending on the national context in which they operate. The European Joint Stock Company has not yet spread widely, although its use is becoming more common, especially in Central and Northern European countries, where organic forms of participation have deeper roots.

In terms of "financial participation", the European Union limited itself to a recommendation that promotes employee participation in profits and company results, including capital participation through share ownership.

7. The current situation in Italy

Employee participation is one of the core values ​​of the Italian Republic. of the Italian Constitution ( Costituzione della Repubblica Italiana ) expressly recognizes the right of workers to participate in business as a fundamental element of the economic and social model.

This provision of the Italian constitution was not actually applied in practice, mainly due to the opposition of the majority of trade unions. Professional organizers primarily preferred an approach based on conflict over a cooperation model that promotes the development of stronger and more advanced participation models, as can be observed in many European countries.

In recent years, however, there has been renewed interest in the topic both among experts and in the industrial world, and even in the Italian parliamentary sphere. Nowadays, more and more attention is paid to overcoming the challenges caused by the implementation of participation, even by trade unions that have traditionally opposed the use of participation. The renewed interest in participation is in line with the demand to improve work and employee appreciation through increasing transparency, and for companies to better meet the demands of corporate social responsibility.

In Italy, external forms of participation — which take place outside of companies — are widespread, thanks to the presence of representatives of the social partners in public institutions. On the other hand, there is a lack of internal and organic forms, which include the presence of representatives of the parties in the collective bodies of corporate governance. This difference, which can be observed in Italy between the evolution of corporate and non-corporate participation, is an anomaly compared to other European countries where the two models have developed in parallel.

In recent years, a more favorable attitude towards solving the situation is beginning to emerge. This is partly due to the transposition of the relevant European directives into Italian law: from 2002 to 2012 through various legislative decrees and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the right of employees to information and consultation within the company.

Experiences similar to this can now be observed in Italy, mostly thanks to the German industry present there. An excellent example is the Volkswagen concern, which also successfully applied the so-called Charter of Labor and Employee Rights . At the same time, participation in the strict sense of the word cannot be observed in these companies, since the employees have no institutionalized participation in the company's bodies.

The practice of participation in Italy can be observed in the following areas:

1. The so-called organizational-institutional participation , which means the presence of representatives of the parties governance bodies. In Italy, however, the legal framework and commercial law do not provide for the forms of co-management or joint decision-making that exist in Germany and other Scandinavian countries, so few such strong participation models can be observed in Italy.
2. Financial participation , which in addition to the collective ownership of company shares by employees, is realized through various degrees of participation in corporate management bodies.

It is a widely used and well-developed form of participation in Italy and throughout Europe.

3. Informative/consultative participation , which means information-consultation relations between employers and employees' representatives, and which takes place through separate meetings and/or observation centers or other company bodies.
4. Direct or often also called operative or integrative participation , which means the direct involvement of employees in the day-to-day operation of the enterprise through the creation and testing of integration mechanisms such as quality circles, development groups and other forms.
5. Finally, economic participation , such as profit sharing , or when a portion of employees' wages are linked to the results of the business, usually linked to profitability, productivity and quality. Through this form of participation, the results achieved by the company become available to the employees, without them having to meaningfully participate in the decisions that determine the results.

8. Participation in small businesses

Due to the complexity of the participation model, many people believe that it can only be implemented in the case of large companies. However, with simplified procedures, it can also be applied to medium-sized enterprises, and it is also possible for smaller enterprises thanks to the habits and practices that define their activities and the values ​​they represent.

These types of companies are in most cases family-owned and have strong roots in local communities. This results in a more personal and direct bond with the social environment in which they operate and of which they are an integral part, which can be a great advantage in terms of the development of participation. The governing bodies are often made up of family members, which on the one hand is a great advantage, but on the other hand can be a serious limitation, as the activities and strategic decisions can be greatly influenced by possible difficulties caused by the relationships between family members. In these cases, participation can serve as a stabilizing force by providing more balanced decision-making mechanisms.

Experience with employee share ownership in small or family businesses shows that it results in a highly competitive business model that allows for a high degree of employee protection, as development strategies always take into account the interests of employees. This is in contrast to when shares are bought by mutual funds, which by their very nature seek to maximize profits and corporate value with little concern for the interests of the community and local area.

Another important aspect that should be highlighted is that participation in large companies is initiated by well-structured regulations and procedures, which makes it easier to outline, negotiate and contract participation principles, policies, models, mechanisms and tools. However, in the case of SMEs, it is necessary to develop a participatory approach. To this end, it is necessary to convey to entrepreneurs and employees how new corporate management models can be created with horizontal organizations, with little hierarchical power and with participants whose prominence, motivation and cohesion find recognition, and who can thereby develop a kind of ownership and entrepreneurial attitude in relation to their own work. .

Even though participatory practices are often used in small businesses without being called by their name, it is important to be aware of this way of doing business in order to reap its full benefits.

Training can play a key role in this regard, as follows:

• Teaching how to go beyond the traditional "boss-employee" subordination, which is still the only accepted form of organization and management.
• Explaining the benefits that can be achieved in this way, such as increasing productivity, improving decision-making and organizational capacity, and reducing costs by eliminating waste.
• Understanding with people that the process of participation and employee involvement is an effective tool to protect businesses from the overwhelming competition resulting from globalization. For this, SMEs need the contribution and support of the entire community. The participation model strengthens and enhances the positive characteristics of local communities, the sense of community, the supply chains, and all of this consolidates and strengthens the Made in Italy label, which is made different by the work invested. Also, because without the proper involvement of those who work in and for the company, it is impossible to achieve the balance that makes it possible to create a truly excellent company.
• Last but not least, teaching that a company, if it works for the benefit of everyone, stands on firmer ground and is able to survive in the long term and survive the personal adversities of the founders.

9. The culture of participation as a resource to be promoted

The culture of participation and its promotion at all levels is one of the most important responses to the crisis of our economic system, which can successfully transform its contradictions into opportunities. It is necessary to create organizations that will be more suitable to cope with the continuous changes of the near future. Soon, the primary goal will no longer be just the increase of turnover and profit, as it was in the past, but the social value and trust embodied in the transactions of the companies will increasingly set the standard. It is enough to think about the already large number of certificates on corporate social responsibility, which are becoming more and more widespread and will only become more important in the future. The same can be said about the new generation of workers, who will pay more and more attention to the trust and social commitment shown by companies in practice.

Companies will have to consider all the components of the ecosystem they are part of, as they face increasingly complex situations that cannot be overcome without the loyalty of their employees and a genuine connection to the environment. In this way, we can create responsible companies that contribute to value creation by connecting all internal and external parties and integrate competitiveness, preservation and protection of jobs, long-term sustainability and connection with communities and the area.

Therefore, it is important to create a culture of participation within companies, actively involving everyone in decision-making processes, until it becomes an integral part of the company. Overcoming top-down, authoritarian and centralizing organizational structures that only breed resistance. Instead, favoring the logic of co-responsibility, consensus and sharing, spreading it at all levels, including the whole organization, even transversally, so that it is not only available to insiders.

We need to create a generation of entrepreneurs and workers who know, appreciate and embrace these values ​​in order to influence and influence the entire society through the company and its work. It is the only way to create a new business and work model that looks forward and beyond this historical period that has now outgrown itself and perhaps begun to decline.

It is not easy to transform an organization from a rigid, top-down hierarchy to one that involves employees at all levels in decision-making. This requires a change in the structure of the company, but even more so a cultural change, which requires time, commitment and the cooperation of professionals accompanying and supporting the process.

10. Conclusion

In order to properly manage the constant changes and challenges of the near future, organizations and companies must be created that are able to integrate competitiveness, the preservation and protection of jobs, long-term sustainability and strong ties to local communities. The participation of employees in the management of companies is one of the most important ways to do this. It is necessary to build a cultural environment that creates and supports continuous dialogue between companies, employees and the area.

It is therefore necessary to integrate the culture of participation into the training organized for companies and employees. Technical skills alone are not enough; organizational and management skills are also needed in order to implement a new participatory way of doing business.

In larger companies, through the development of knowledge and awareness at all functional levels, in order to anticipate and facilitate the application of regulations in the future. And in small businesses, by encouraging and imparting a participative approach to corporate organization, which recognizes the leadership role of employees, gives them a sense of recognition and belonging until they themselves see their own work as owners and entrepreneurs.

Therefore, it would be very important to develop projects and programs in the framework of popularization, vocational education and training, the main goal of which is to spread the culture of participation. It is necessary to create a generation of entrepreneurs and employees - also in the case of small businesses - who know, appreciate and embrace these values ​​in such a way that, starting from their company and workplace, they can later pass them on to society as a whole.

11. Bibliography

• L'Idea Partecipativa song A alla Z

Mario Bozzi Sentieri

I Libri del Borghese, 2020

• La participation che non c'è e invece servirebbe

Francesco Paolo Capone

La Meta Sociale - October 8, 2020

https://www.lametasociale.it/2020/10/08/la-partecipazione-che-non-ce-e-invece-servirebbe/

• La participation dei lavoratori alla gestione dell'empresa. A possible project

Marco Carcano (a cura di), Roberto Ferrari (a cura di), Vito Volpe (a cura di) - 2017 - Guerini Next

• The expectations disattese della participation dei lavoratori all'empresa

Andrea De Tommasi - 17 Giugno 2021

https://asvis.it/goal9/home/425-10035/focus-le-aspettative-disattese-della-partecipazione-dei-lavoratori-allimpresa

• Partecipazione dei lavoratori nell'empresa: le ragioni di un ritardo

Pietro Ichino

https://www.pietroichino.it/?p=29580

• La participation dei lavoratori. Song Mitbestimmung all'impresa sociale

07 February 2020 - di Francesca Manca

https://www.filodiritto.com/la-partecipazione-dei-lavoratori-dal-mitbestimmung-allimpresa-sociale

• Come cambieranno le relazioni industriali con il Coronavirus

di Salvatore Santangelo

https://www.startmag.it/economia/le-relazioni-industriali-al-tempo-del-covid19/

• Partecipazione dei lavoratori alla gestione dell'empresa

Tiziano Treu - Diritto online 2017

http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/partecipazione-dei-lavoratori-alla-gestione-delle-imprese_%28Diritto-on-line%29/

• La partecipation dei lavoratori all'empresa

Rome, November 2012

Fondazione Cercare Ancora

Eni Corporate University

• Il modello tedesco. Come funziona davvero

6 aprile 2012 in Economia, Europa, Lavoro

https://keynesblog.com/2012/04/06/il-modello-tedesco-come-funziona-davvero/

• The rise of Employee Ownership Trusts and what this could mean for your business

23 July 2021

http://www.mitbestimmung.it/the-rise-of-employee-ownership-trusts-and-what-this-could-mean-for-your-business/

• Type and level of participation

EQuIPE2020 - AnPAL Servizi SpA.

http://www.equipeonline.it/tipi-e-livelli-della-partecipazione

AFTERWORD

Augusto Cocchioni was intrigued by a topic that was new to him, deepened his knowledge in it, and then found a way to pass it on in a simple and comprehensible manner. I told him for the first time about participation as one of the characteristic elements of the UGL trade union, when I met him in Budapest a few years ago during my trip to Hungary on the occasion of my participation in an international conference, where he has been living and working for more than thirty years as a business consultant for small and medium-sized enterprises and the as an expert in corporate strategy, management and internationalization. Augusto liked the topic so much that he started to promote the culture of participation as one of the central elements of the new organizational and business models that are essential to address the challenges of the near future. We have translated his work into several languages ​​because we believe it is a very useful tool for building cross-border relationships.

 Gian Luigi Ferretti

UGL - International Relations

Augusto Cocchioni

Born in 1961, he obtained his bachelor's degree in economics and management in Rome, then his master's degree in the internationalization of companies. After initial experiences in England, Venezuela and Spain, he moved to Hungary in 1991, which was already a country of strategic importance for the entire Central and Eastern European region, at a historical moment when the region's markets were opening up to Western companies.

He works as a consultant for small and medium-sized enterprises, combining traditional techniques with innovative business management methods and tools. He is the author of numerous books and publications, he also researches the dynamics of corporate value creation, and also considers the culture of employee participation to be of fundamental importance in terms of social responsibility and corporate sustainability.

Member of the UGL Foreign Affairs Council, and responsible for international relations for Hungary. Member of the Audit Committee of Confindustria Hungary. From 1998 to 2010, he was a member and chairman of the Audit Committee of the Hungarian Italian Chamber of Commerce (CCIU), as well as an arbitrator of the chamber.