<p>This case study aims to find out what characterizes the Brazilian company Semco and the Swedish company Freys hotels as private owned democratic companies, and whether the mechanisms used to apply and carry on the democratic process are sufficient or not to truly make the workplaces democratic. The way this study is conducted, is by analyzing the definition of workplace democracy and its managerial approaches. To be able to map and study the democratic process in the companies, the authors chose to analyze the parts of the organization that sustain democracy. These parts are structure, information/communication process, individuals and decision-making.</p><p>The theories applied, are theoretical thoughts and definitions of the managerial approaches (empowerment and participation) used to introduce democracy at the workplace. In addition a political framework for analyzing democracy is used. Five previous studies were also highlighted in the theory chapter, in order to reinforce the authors’ choice of theories and give a broaden understanding of the subject studied in this essay. For analysis, seven hypotheses characterizing a democratic company and the use of workplace democracy were tested. The analysis was carried out using collected primary and secondary data from books, articles, interviews and inquiries with employees from Semco and Freys Hotels. Another interview was conducted with Professor Carl Von Otter at the National Institute for Working Life, who explained the meaning of a democratic corporation. </p><p>The results show that the hypotheses can be used to describe workplace democracy. However, the managerial approaches are not sufficient to make a company democratic since</p><p>they can be used in order to restrain employee participation. Participation and involvement should be the basic idea that comes with employment. Another conclusion from the study is that the application and success of workplace democracy depends on the national context. </p>

This case study aims to find out what characterizes the Brazilian company Semco and the Swedish company Freys hotels as private owned democratic companies, and whether the mechanisms used to apply and carry on the democratic process are sufficient or not to truly make the workplaces democratic. The way this study is conducted, is by analyzing the definition of workplace democracy and its managerial approaches. To be able to map and study the democratic process in the companies, the authors chose to analyze the parts of the organization that sustain democracy. These parts are structure, information/communication process, individuals and decision-making. The theories applied, are theoretical thoughts and definitions of the managerial approaches (empowerment and participation) used to introduce democracy at the workplace. In addition a political framework for analyzing democracy is used. Five previous studies were also highlighted in the theory chapter, in order to reinforce the authors’ choice of theories and give a broaden understanding of the subject studied in this essay. For analysis, seven hypotheses characterizing a democratic company and the use of workplace democracy were tested. The analysis was carried out using collected primary and secondary data from books, articles, interviews and inquiries with employees from Semco and Freys Hotels. Another interview was conducted with Professor Carl Von Otter at the National Institute for Working Life, who explained the meaning of a democratic corporation. The results show that the hypotheses can be used to describe workplace democracy. However, the managerial approaches are not sufficient to make a company democratic since they can be used in order to restrain employee participation. Participation and involvement should be the basic idea that comes with employment. Another conclusion from the study is that the application and success of workplace democracy depends on the national context.

Quel rôle les entreprises doivent-elles jouer dans la société ? Dans le premier chapitre, nous critiquons l’idée selon laquelle les entreprises ont des responsabilités sociales au-delà de la loi : elles n’ont ni les capacités ni la légitimité démocratique d’agir au nom du bien commun. Elles doivent se contenter d’assumer leur rôle économique en respectant la loi. Cependant, celui-ci inclut la distribution des richesses. Le deuxième chapitre présente trois intuitions issues de la pensée économique classique. Celles-ci permettent de justifier une distribution égalitaire des revenus du travail. Dans le troisième chapitre, nous montrons que les entreprises ont un rôle important dans la coordination des activités économiques et doivent être des institutions clés dans l’instauration d’une distribution plus égalitaire des revenus. Pour promouvoir cet objectif distributif, il faut repenser la propriété, la régulation et le design institutionnel des entreprises. Il faut par exemple favoriser les coopératives et la démocratie d’entreprise. / What role should firms play in modern economies ? In the first chapter, I criticize the idea that firms have broad social responsibilities beyond the law : they have neither the capacity nor the democratic legitimacy to act on behalf of the common good. They must therefore stick to their economic role. However, when defining this economic role, one should include distributive considerations. The second chapter exposes three intuitions of classical economists. These provide the basis to justify an equal distribution of labour income. In the third chapter, I show that firms play an important role in coordinating economic activities, and should be key institutions in establishing a fairer distribution of labour income. In order to promote this distributive goal, one must rethink the ownership and institutional design of firms. For example, the regulation should promote cooperative ownership and workplace democracy.

Quel rôle les entreprises doivent-elles jouer dans la société ? Dans le premier chapitre, nous critiquons l’idée selon laquelle les entreprises ont des responsabilités sociales au-delà de la loi : elles n’ont ni les capacités ni la légitimité démocratique d’agir au nom du bien commun. Elles doivent se contenter d’assumer leur rôle économique en respectant la loi. Cependant, celui-ci inclut la distribution des richesses. Le deuxième chapitre présente trois intuitions issues de la pensée économique classique. Celles-ci permettent de justifier une distribution égalitaire des revenus du travail. Dans le troisième chapitre, nous montrons que les entreprises ont un rôle important dans la coordination des activités économiques et doivent être des institutions clés dans l’instauration d’une distribution plus égalitaire des revenus. Pour promouvoir cet objectif distributif, il faut repenser la propriété, la régulation et le design institutionnel des entreprises. Il faut par exemple favoriser les coopératives et la démocratie d’entreprise. / What role should firms play in modern economies ? In the first chapter, I criticize the idea that firms have broad social responsibilities beyond the law : they have neither the capacity nor the democratic legitimacy to act on behalf of the common good. They must therefore stick to their economic role. However, when defining this economic role, one should include distributive considerations. The second chapter exposes three intuitions of classical economists. These provide the basis to justify an equal distribution of labour income. In the third chapter, I show that firms play an important role in coordinating economic activities, and should be key institutions in establishing a fairer distribution of labour income. In order to promote this distributive goal, one must rethink the ownership and institutional design of firms. For example, the regulation should promote cooperative ownership and workplace democracy.

A democratic workplace is one where workers as a body have the right to determine the internal organization and future direction of the firm. Worker co-operatives are a type of democratic firm. In a worker co-operative employees are joint-owners of the firm and participate democratically in workplace governance. Much has been written about the supposed benefits of worker co-operatives for workers and for society. One thread of this research, originating with Carole Pateman’s theoretical work (Pateman 1970), argues that worker co-operatives act as sites of political learning for workers. By participating democratically in workplace decisions, individuals are thought to learn the skills and psychological dispositions needed to participate in political democracy. A second thread argues that co-operatives will improve worker well-being. Democratic governance will give workers control over work organization, increasing autonomy in their daily lives, and leading to an increase in non-material work rewards such as job satisfaction. Worker ownership will equalize the material rewards from work and improve job security. These arguments are premised on the idea that democratic governance structures and worker ownership will lead to widespread, effective worker participation in decision-making and the equalization of power at work. However, insufficient attention is given to the contextual factors beyond formal governance and ownership structures that shape the internal dynamics of workplace democracy. I conduct an in-depth, mixed-methods case study of a worker co-operative with 158 employees in the UK cycling retail industry. Using survey research, social network analysis, in-depth interviews and direct observation, I show how individual differences, firm-level contextual factors such as the social composition of the organization, and macro-level factors such as economic and cultural context, lead to unequal participation opportunities and different outcomes for different groups of workers within the firm. My research leads to three conclusions. First, the outcomes of workplace democracy for workers are highly context-dependent. They will differ across groups of workers within co-operatives, across different democratic firms, and across cultures. Second, the relationship between workplace democracy and political participation is more complex than the Pateman thesis suggests. It is contingent on the political identities of workers, which are themselves shaped by wider political economic context. Political identity affects both participation behaviour at work, and how workplace experience shapes political views. Third, the subjective well-being outcomes of workplace democracy depend on workers’ expectations about work. Expectations are shaped by the same forces that mould political identity. Workplace democracy raises expectations for certain groups of workers, leading to well-being harms when expectations are not met. Overall, the benefits of workplace democracy for workers and for society are overstated. In the UK context, co-ops are unlikely to realize the benefits attributed to them without large-scale public policy interventions.

This thesis paper is a historical study that examines the labor political issues which the movement of Swedish trade unions faced between the years 1966–1985. How did they understand and formulate these problems and what solutions did they present? “The good work” (“Det goda arbetet”) was one such solution which was introduced in 1985 by The Union of Industrial Metalworkers (Metallindustriarbetareförbundet). This thesis explores the underlying ideas and the history behind this visionary program and how it took inspiration from the ideological developments of the previous decades. This is done by analysing four conference reports published in association with yearly union conferences between 1966 and 1985. These reports center around themes of technological development, working conditions, worker power and self determination to name a few.  The analysis focuses on the labor political issues that arose after the establishment of the “Swedish model” and the post-war era economic boom. One of the major ideological developments during the 1960s was the backlash against the fordist model of production and the critique of rationalisation of work in general. This is shown to be one the major shifts in thinking about work which leads towards the development of solutions such as “The good work” during the 1970s and 80s. Furthermore, it is shown how “The good work” was linked historically to alienation theory and sociological research during the period. The key conclusions from the analysis focus on how worker discontent during the late 1960s led to massive labor political reforms during the 1970s along with the larger project of democratising the workplace gaining new life. This development, however, took a turn in 1976 when the social democratic party lost their first election in nearly 40 years. The analysis of the report by The Union of Industrial Metalworkers from 1985 shows the vision of “The good work” as they formulated it to be stuck between two separate eras. On the one hand it was still in conversation with the left-wing project of advancing labor power and democracy from the 1970s. On the other it had to confront the new political landscape of the 1980s and the right-wing turn towards neoliberalism.