IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/lue/wpaper/128.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Drittelbeteiligung im Aufsichtsrat - Gesetzliche Regelung versus Unternehmenspraxis Ausmaß und Bestimmungsgründe der Umgehung des Drittelbeteiligungsgesetzes in Industrieunternehmen

Author

Listed:
  • Sebastian Troch

    (Institute of Economics, University of Lüneburg)

Abstract

Das Drittelbeteiligungsgesetz (DritttelbG) verpflichtet GmbHs mit mehr als 500 und weniger als 2000 Beschäftigten einen Aufsichtsrat einzurichten und ein Drittel der Aufsichtsratssitze mit Vertretern der Belegschaft zu besetzen. Diese Untersuchung belegt erstmals, dass im Verarbeitenden Gewerbe rund 40% der Unternehmen aus diesem Kreis keinen Aufsichtsrat einrichten, obwohl dies gesetzlich vorgeschrieben ist. Eine ökonometrische Untersuchung ergibt, dass die Wahrscheinlichkeit des Vorhandenseins eines Aufsichtsrats signifikant von der Gesellschafsform des Hauptgesellschafters und von der Anzahl der Beschäftigten abhängt. Familiengeführte GmbHs umgehen häufiger die Regelungen des Drittelbeteiligungsgesetzes und verfügen seltener über einen Aufsichtsrat, während sich in größeren GmbHs häufiger ein Aufsichtsrat findet. Für empirische Analysen zu den Folgen der Unternehmensmitbestimmung folgt aus dieser Studie, dass ein Vergleich von Kapitalgesellschaften mit mehr als 2000 Beschäftigten einerseits und Gesellschaften mit 500 bis 2000 Beschäftigten andererseits nicht mit einem Vergleich von paritätischer Mitbestimmung und Drittelmitbestimmung im Aufsichtsrat gleichzusetzen ist, da ein großer Teil der Unternehmen, die in den Anwendungsbereich des DrittelbG fallen, keinen mitbestimmten Aufsichtsrat haben. Deshalb muss die umstrittene Diskussion um die Auswirkung der Mitbestimmung auf die Unternehmensperformance mit einem anderen Licht gesehen werden und möglicherweise auf eine andere Datengrundlage gestellt werden.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:lue:wpaper:128
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.leuphana.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Forschungseinrichtungen/ifvwl/WorkingPapers/lue/pdf/wp_128_Upload.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. Felix FitzRoy & Kornelius Kraft, 2005. "Co‐determination, Efficiency and Productivity," British Journal of Industrial Relations, London School of Economics, vol. 43(2), pages 233-247, June.
    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. 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.
    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. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.

    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. 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.
    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. Forcillo, Donato, 2017. "Codetermination: the Presence of Workers on the Board. A Depth Analysis," MPRA Paper 81936, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. Surhan Cam & Serap Palaz, 2023. "Mutual interests management with a purposive approach: Evidence from the Turkish shipyards for an amorphous impact model between (subjective) well‐being and performance," Industrial Relations Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(1), pages 40-70, January.
    8. 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.
    9. Josheski, Dushko, 2012. "Socially - optimal level of co-determination of labor and the European directive on workers' councils," MPRA Paper 38196, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Simon DEAKIN & Jonas MALMBERG & Prabirjit SARKAR, 2014. "How do labour laws affect unemployment and the labour share of national income? The experience of six OECD countries, 1970–2010," International Labour Review, International Labour Organization, vol. 153(1), pages 1-27, March.
    11. 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.
    12. Cristi A. Gleason & Sascha Kieback & Martin Thomsen & Christoph Watrin, 2021. "Monitoring or payroll maximization? What happens when workers enter the boardroom?," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 26(3), pages 1046-1087, September.
    13. Kraft, Kornelius, 2018. "Productivity and distribution effects of codetermination in an efficient bargaining model," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 458-485.
    14. Köhler, Katrin & Pagel, Beatrice & Rau, Holger A., 2015. "How worker participation affects reciprocity under minimum remuneration policies: Experimental evidence," University of Göttingen Working Papers in Economics 267, University of Goettingen, Department of Economics.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. FitzRoy, Felix & Nolan, Michael A., 2005. "Value of Work: Bargaining, Job-Satisfaction, and Taxation in a Simple GE Model," IZA Discussion Papers 1760, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    18. 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.
    19. FitzRoy, Felix & Nolan, Michael A., 2005. "Value of Work: Bargaining, Job-Satisfaction, and Taxation in a Simple GE Model," IZA Discussion Papers 1760, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    20. Kornelius Kraft & Jörg Stank & Ralf Dewenter, 2011. "Co-determination and innovation," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 35(1), pages 145-172.

    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:lue:wpaper:128. 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: Joachim Wagner (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://leuphana.de/institute/ivwl.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.