The August 29, 2008 Employee Ownership Update is online and discusses the following:

• Majority ESOP-Owned Companies Have 8.8% Productivity Edge
  
• New NCEO Issue Brief on State of Broad-Based Equity Plans in the U.S.
  
• Top 47,000 Families Owned $1,196 Trillon in Private and Public Equity in 2004
  
• Correction on Appleton Inc.

The Update discusses "Employee Ownership and Participation Effects on Firm Outcomes", a study by Brent Kramer that found that majority ESOP-owned companies have sales per employee 8.8% greater than comparable non-ESOP companies:

A new study of 328 majority ESOP-owned members of the ESOP Association by Brent Kramer has found that these companies have sales per employee that are 8.8% greater than comparable non-ESOP companies. 100% ESOP-owned companies did better than those that were over 50% but not 100%. Smaller companies and companies with greater ESOP account value per employee also did better. Employee influence on new products, work design, and marketing all were also strongly related to performance outcomes.

A summary of the study discusses how the study provides strong evidence that majority employee-owned business have a competitive advantage over their counterparts:

…provides strong evidence that majority employee-owned businesses have a significant advantage over comparable traditionally-owned businesses in sales per employee, a reasonably good indicator of efficiency and profitability. His figure for the average advantage, $44,500, would mean that a typical employee-owned 200-employee firm could be expected to have nearly a $9 million annual sales edge over its non-employee-owned "twin."

It asserts that the effectiveness of employee ownership may lessen as firms get larger:

Many of the factors that make employee ownership effective might be weaker as firms get larger. Larger firms make it harder for employees to communicate easily, both among line employees and between line employees and management, and it may also be harder for a "culture" of ownership to develop or be maintained as firms grow.

It also discusses the importance of employee participation:

Why does employee ownership matter? Could it be that employee owners try harder? Come up with more suggestions about improved production methods or marketing strategies? Whatever the reasons—and there are probably many—it makes sense that the degree of effective non-management employee participation and power at work should affect the size of the employee ownership advantage. In other words, given two groups of similar-sized EOFs, we might expect that the group that allows non-management employee-owners greater latitude in various dimensions of their work would have a greater employee ownership advantage.

The Update also discusses the state of broad-based equity plans:

The issue brief finds that the consensus of researchers indicates that about nine million U.S. employees receive stock options, restricted stock, or other individual equity awards. Most technology companies still offer awards to most or all employees, and virtually all pre-IPO firms do. About 11% of public companies make most employees eligible for awards, although eligibility does not always translate into actually receiving an award. About 11 to 12 million employees participate in employee stock purchase plans. The number of employees involved in both individual equity and stock purchase plans has dropped about 30% from its 2001 peak, but is about the same as the late 1990s.

The Update discusses an IRS analysis of wealth holdings. The specific study is not provided, but it is likely from data obtained by the Statistics of Income (SOI) Program:

The Revenue Act of 1916 mandated the annual publication of statistics related to "the operations of the internal revenue laws" ^1,
2 as they affect:

• Individuals
• All forms of businesses
• Estates
• Nonprofit organizations
• Trusts
• Investments abroad and foreign investments in the United States

SOI fulfills this function by collecting and processing data so that they become informative and by sharing information about how the tax system works with other government agencies and the general public.

The data is used to "analyze tax policy, project tax revenues, and estimate the overall impact of tax law changes and their effects on tax collections."