Country studies

Austria
  • Brachinger, R. and Leitsmüller, H. (2005). Betriebsräte im Aufsichtsrat/ Wirtschaftliche Mitbestimmung auf dem Prüfstand. Arbeit und Wirtschaft, 59: 1-9.
  • Gagawczuk, W., Gahleitner, H., Leitsmüller, H., Preiss, J. and Schneller, H. (2004). Der Aufsichtsrat. Die häufigsten Fragen, Verlag des ÖGB, Vienna.
  • Gahleitner, H. (2013). Mitwirkung im Aufsichtsrat. Grundzüge des Gesellschaftsrechts für Arbeitnehmervertreterinnen II, Verlag des ÖGB, Vienna.
  • Gahleitner, S. and Preiss, J. (2003). The Essentials of corporate law for workers’ representatives II: supervisory board participation. VÖGB and AK Österreich, Vienna.
Croatia
  • Vinković, M. (2014). Works councils in Croatia: A form of the protection of workers’ rights and/or the employer’s interest? In R. Blanpain and N. Lyutov (eds.). Workers’ representation in Central and Eastern Europe. Challenges and opportunities for the works councils’ system. Kluwer law international, Alphen aan den Rijn, pp. 37-51.
Czech Republic
  • Vliegenthart, A. (2008). Transnational Actors and Corporate Governance in ECE: The Case of the EU and the Czech Republic. In J. Pickles and R. Jenkins (eds.). Rethinking the State and Society in Soviet and Post-socialist Economies, Palgrave, London, 47-68.
  • Vliegenthart, A. and Horn, L. (2007). The Role of the EU in the (Trans)formation of Corporate Governance Regulation in Central Eastern Europe – The Case of the Czech Republic. Competition and Change, 1(2): 137-154.
Denmark
  • Christensen, S. and Westenholz, A. (2001). Employee Representatives as Company Strategic Actors in an Enacted World. In G. Winter (ed.) Participatory Ownership and Management in Greenland and Other Artic Regions. Arctic Research Journal, 1: 78-90.
  • Christensen, S. and Westenholz, A. (1999). Boards of Directors as Strategists in an Enacted World – The Danish Case. Journal of Management and Governance, 3(3): 261-286.
  • Christensen, S. and Westenholz, A. (1997). The Social/Behavioral Construction of Employees as Strategic Actors on Company Boards of Directors. American Behavioral Scientist, 40(4): 490-501.
  • Fauerholdt, N. (2014). Medarbejdervalgte bestyrelsesmedlemmer i erhvervsbestyrelser. Ugebrevet A4, Copenhagen.
  • Lavesen, M. and Kragh-Stetting, J. (2011). Håndbog for medarbejderrepræsentanter 2011. Erhvervsskolernes Forlag, Odense.
  • Rimfort, P. and Christy, N. (2012). Medarbejdervalgt I selskabets øverste ledelse. Vejen til indflydelse, CO-industri, Copenhagen.
  • Rose, C. (2005). Medarbejdervalgte bestyrelsesmedlemmer i danske virksomheder. Tidsskrift for Arbejdsliv, 7(3): 34-50.
  • Rose, C. (2008). The Challenges of Employee-Appointed Board Members for Corporate Governance: The Danish Evidence. European Business Organization Law Review, 9(2): 215-235.
  • Rose, C., and Kurt Kvist, H. (2004). Employee directors – What is their say? Copenhagen Business School, Copenhagen.
Finland
  • Sairo, K. (2001). Henkilöstön hallintoedustus metalli-ja elektroniikkateollisuuden yrityksissä, report to Metallityöväen Liiton tutkimustoiminnan julkaisuja.
  • Jones, D., Kalmi, P., Kato, T. and Mäkinen, M. (2010). HRM practices and firm performance: evidence from Finnish manufacturing. Aalto University School of Economics, Working Paper No. W-485.
France
  • Auberger, M.-N. and Bouchet J.-P. (2007). Guide de l'administrateur salarie. Cadres CFDT, No. Special 423. France.
  • Auberger M-N. and Conchon, A. (eds.). (2009). Les administrateurs salariés et la gouvernance d’entreprise. La documentation française, coll. Les études, Paris.
  • Barisi G., Burdillat, M. et al. (1985). Une étape dans la démocratisation du secteur public. L’élection de représentants des salariés aux conseils d’administration. Travail et Emploi, 24: 43-50.
  • Barreau, J. (1995). Administrateur salarié et élection. In P. Merle and F. Vatin (eds). La citoyenneté : extension ou régression, PUR, Rennes, pp. 153-164.
  • Barreau, J. (1995). Mode de désignation et représentativité des administrateurs salariés. Les Cahiers des Relations Professionnelles, Decembre, 11, 81-94.
  • Barreau, J. (1990). L’État entrepreneur. Nationalisations, gestion du secteur public concurrentiel, construction européenne (1982-1993), L’Harmattan, Paris, pp. 156-164.
  • Benhamou, S. (2010). Améliorer la gouvernance d’entreprise et la participation des salariés. La documentation Française, coll. Rapports et Documents, No. 27, Paris.
  • Bertin-Mourot, B. and Lapôtre, M. (2003). Gouvernement d’entreprise : fonctionnement des organes de contrôle et rôle des représentants des salariés. CARIS-CFDT, Paris.
  • Burdillat, M. (1985). La démocratisation du secteur public : l’élection des administrateurs salariés, rapport du CRMSI.
  • Collège des Bernardins et al. (2015). Premiers résultats de l’enquête sur les administrateurs salariés.
  • Conchon, A. (2014). Les administrateurs salariés en France. Contribution à une sociologie de la participation des salariés aux décisions de l’entreprise. PhD dissertation, dissertation under the supervision of Michel Lallement and Annette Jobert, Paris, Cnam.
  • Conchon, A. (2013). La participation aux décisions stratégiques de l’entreprise : influence ou pouvoir des administrateurs salariés? Participations, 5: 127-149.
  • Conchon, A. (2008). Quelle régulation collective de la démocratie industrielle? Le cas des administrateurs salariés. Terrains & Travaux, 14: 48-67.
  • Conchon, A. (2006). Übersicht über die Arbeitnehmervertreter mit Stimmberechtigung in den Leitungsorganen der französischen Unternehmen. Research report to Hans Böckler Stiftung.
  • CRMSI. (ed.) (1985). Premier bilan de la démocratisation des conseils d’administration dans le secteur public. Compte-rendu de la journée du 15 novembre.
  • Deslandes, G. and Pompée, J. (1995). Les administrateurs élus dans les entreprises publiques. Recherche CFE-CGC – Agence d’objectifs IRES, Paris.
  • Ginglinger, E., Megginson, W. and Waxin, T. (2011). Employee ownership, board representation, and corporate financial policies. Journal of Corporate Finance, 17(4): 868-887.
  • Gnazale, G., Tchotourian, I. and Violay, L. (2008). Implication des salariés dans la vie de l’entreprise : lorsque le droit pose les fondements d’une nouvelle gouvernance. Université de Montréal, CADI Travaux et publications, prépublication.
  • Hollandts, X., Guedri, Z. and Aubert, N. (2009). Représentation du travail au conseil d’administration et performance de l’entreprise: une étude empirique sur le SBF 250 (2000-2005). In M.N. Auberger and A. Conchon (eds.). Les administrateurs salariés et la gouvernance d’entreprise. La documentation Française, Paris, pp. 93-101.
  • Ministère du travail. (2015). Bilan de la loi de sécurisation de l’emploi du 14 juin 2013.
  • Sauviat, C. (2006). Le rôle des salariés dans ma gouvernance des entreprises en France : un débat ancien, une légitimité en devenir. Document de travail de l’IRES, No. 06.02, Paris.
  • TM-Partenaires. (2014). L’administrateur salarié. Premier bilan après la loi de 2013. Regards sur la gouvernance.
Germany
  • Addison, J. (2009). The Economics of Codetermination: Lessons of the German Experience. Palgrave Macmillan, New York.
  • Addison, J. T. and Schnabel, C. (2011). Worker Directors: A German Product that Didn’t Export? Industrial Relations, 50(2): 354-374.
  • Ballerstedt, K. (1977). Das Mitbestimmungsgesetz zwischen Gesellschafts-, Arbeits- und Unternehmensrecht. Zeitschrift für Unternehmens- und Gesellschaftsrecht, 6(2): 133-171.
  • Balsmeier, B., Bermig, A. and Dilger, A. (2013). Corporate governance and employee power in the boardroom: An applied game theoretic analysis. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 91: 51-74.
  • Baums, T. and Frick, B. (1999). The Market Value of the Codetermined Firm. In M. Blair and M. Roe (eds.). Employees and Corporate Governance, The Brookings Institution, Washington DC, pp. 206-235.
  • Bayer, W. (2009). Drittelbeteiligung in Deutschland – Ermittlung von Gesellschaften, die dem DrittelbG unterliegen, Research report to Hans-Böckler Foundation.
  • Bertelsmann Stiftung ans Hans-Böckler-Stiftung. (eds.). (1998). Mitbestimmung und neue Unternehmenskulturen. Bilanz und Perspektiven, Gütersloh: Verlag Bertelsmann Stiftung.
  • Biedenkopf, K., Streeck, W. and Wissmann, H. (2007). A core element of Europe. Mitbestimmung international edition, 8: 20-25.
  • Biedenkopf, K., Streeck, W. and Wissmann, H. (2006). Kommissions zur Modernisierung der deutschen Unternehmensmitbestimmung. Bericht der wissenschaftlichen Mitglieder der Kommission.
  • Boneberg, F. (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. Jahrbücher für Nationalökonomie und Statistik/Journal of Economics and Statistics, 231(3): 440-457.
  • Debus, M. (2010). Evaluation des Aufsichtsrats: Theoretische Grundlagen und empirische Befunde. Gabler Verlag, Wiesbaden.
  • Duran, M. and Pull, K. (2014). Der Beitrag der Arbeitnehmervertreter zur fachlichen und geschlechtlichen Diversität von Aufsichtsräten: Erkenntnisse aus einer qualitativ-explorativen Analyse. Industrielle Beziehungen, 21(4): 329-351.
  • Fauver, L. and Fuerts, M. (2006). Does good corporate governance include employee representation? Evidence from German corporate boards. Journal of Financial Economics, 82(3): 673-710.
  • Feils, D., Liu R. and Sabac, F. (2014). Does employee representation on the board provide a comparative advantage? Evidence from Germany and the United States. Working Paper, Alberta School of Business, Canada.
  • Fetzer T. (2010). Defending Mitbestimmung: German trade unions and European company law regulation (1967-2000). Economic and Industrial Democracy, 31(4): 24-39.
  • FitzRoy, F. and Kraft, K. (2005). Co-Determination, Efficiency, and Productivity. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 43(2): 233-247.
  • Frick, B. and Bermig, A. (2011). Mitbestimmung und Unternehmensperformance: der Einfluss von Arbeitnehmervertreter im Aufsichtsrat auf Unternehmenswert. Die Betriebswirtschaft, 71(3): 281-304.
  • Gerum, E. (2007). Das deutsche Corporate Governance-System. Eine empirische Untersuchung. Schäffer-Poeschel, Stuttgart.
  • Gerum, E. (1998). Mitbestimmung und Corporate Governance. Verlag Bertelsmann Stiftung, Gütersloh.
  • Gerum, E. and Debus, M. (2006). Die Größe des Aufsichtsrates als rechtspolitisches Problem – Einige empirische Befunde. Marburger Corporate Governance Forschung, Diskussionspapier No. 1.
  • Gerum, E., Steinmann, H. and Fees, W. (1988). Der mitbestimmte Aufsichtsrat. C.E. Poeschel Verlag, Stuttgart.
  • Gerum, E. and Wagner, H. (1998). Economics of Labor Co-Determination in View of Corporate Governance. In K. Hopt, H. Kanda, M. Roe, E. Wymeersch and S. Prigge (eds.). Comparative Corporate Governance. The State of the Art and Emerging Research, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 341-360.
  • Greifenstein, R. and Kißler, L. (2010). Mitbestimmung im Spiegel der Forschung. Sigma Edition, Berlin.
  • Höpner, M. (2004). Unternehmensmitbestimmung unter Beschuss: Die Mitbestimmunsdebatte im Licht der sozialwissenschaftlichen Forschung. Industrielle Beziehungen, 11(4): 347-379.
  • Höpner, M. and Müllenborn, T. (2010). Mitbestimmung im Unternehmensvergleich. Ein Konzept zur Messung des Einflusspotentiels der Arbeit,ehmervertreter im mitbestimmten Aufsichtsrat. Industrielle Beziehungen, 7(1): 7-29.
  • Jansen, T. (2013). Mitbestimmung in Aufsichtsräten. Springer VS, Wiesbaden.
  • Jansen, T. (2012). Unternehmensmitbestimmung als Arrangement von Politik und Ökonomie. Eine Fallstudie im mitbestimmten Aufsichtsrat. Soziale Welt, 63: 163-181.
  • Jirjahn, U. (2011). Ökonomische Wirkungen der Mitbestimmung. In Deutschland: Ein Update, Schmollers Jahrbuch, 131: 3-57.
  • Jürgens, U. and Lippert, I. (2005). Communication and cooperation in German supervisory boards. How do executive managers evaluate the German codetermination system? Presentation at the SASE Conference, 30 June, Budapest.
  • Jürgens, U., and Lippert I. (2005). Leitende Angestellte im Informations- und Wissensssystem Aufsichtsrat. Industrielle Beziehungen, 12(3): 280-305.
  • Jürgens U. and Lippert, I. (2005). Kommunikation und Wissen im Aufsichtsrat: Voraussetzungen und Kriterien guter Aufsichtsratsarbeit aus der Perspektive leitender Angestellter. WZB discussion paper, No. SP III 2005-301.
  • Jürgens U., Lippert, I. and Gaeth, F. (2008). Information, Kommunikation und Wissen im Mitbestimmungssystem, Schriften der Hans-Böckler-Stiftung, Baden-Baden, Nomos.
  • Keller, B. (2008). Industrial relations in Germany. Paper presented at the conference “International trends in industrial relations”, University of Athens, Department of Economics, December.
  • Keller B. and Werner, F. (2010). Industrial democracy from a European Perspective - The Example of SEs. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 31(4) suppl.: 40-54.
  • Kim, A.H., Maug, E. and Schneider, C. (2014). Labor representation in governance as an insurance mechanism. ECGI Finance working paper, No. 411/2014.
  • Köstler, R., Müller, M. and Sick, S. (2013). Aufsichtsratspraxis. Handbuch für die Arbeitnehmervertreter im Aufsichtsrat, Bund-Verlag, Frankfurt am Main.
  • Kraft, K. (2001). Codetermination as a strategic advantage? Frankfurt am Main: Organization, 19(3-4): 543-566.
  • Kraft, K. and Stank, J. (2004). ie Auswirkungen der gesetzlichen Mitbestimmung auf die Innovationsaktivität deutscher Unternehmen. Schmollers Jahrbuch, 3: 421-449.
  • Kraft, K., Stank, J. and Dewenter, R. (2010). Co-determination and innovation. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 35(1): 145-172.
  • Kraft, K. and Ugarkovic, M. (2006). Gesetzliche Mitbestimmung und Kapitalrendite. Jahrbücher für Nationalökonomie und Statistik, 226(5): 588-604.
  • Lippert, I. (2008). Perspektivenverschiebungen in der Corporate Governance-Neuere Ansätze und Studien der Corporate-Governance-Forschung. WZB discussion paper, No. SP II 2008-302.
  • Michel, H. (2007). Co-determination in Germany: The Recent Debate. WDW (Workplace Democracy Workshops) Working Paper Series, No. 4.
  • Page, R. (2011). Co-determination in Germany. A Beginner’s Guide. Hans-Böckler-Stiftung Arbeitspapier, No. 33.
  • Paster, T. (2012). Do German employers support board-level codetermination? The paradox of individual support and collective opposition. Socio-Economic Review, 10: 471-495.
  • Pistor, K. (1999). Codetermination: A sociopolitical Model with Governance Externalities. In M. Blair and M. Roe (eds.). Employees and Corporate Governance, Brookings Institution Press, Washington DC, pp. 163-193.
  • Raabe, N. (2005). Aus dem Aufsichtsratsalltag. Die Mitbestimmung, 52(7): 38-42.
  • Raabe, N. (2004). Die Zukunft der Mitbestimmung. Eine qualitative Studie zur Praxis der Mitbestimmung im Aufsichtsrat, Diplomarbeit an der Wirtschaftswissenschaftlichen Fakultät der Humboldt- Universität zu Berlin.
  • Renaud, S. (2007). Dynamic Efficiency of Supervisory Board Codetermination in Germany. Labour, 21(4-5): 689-712.
  • Roe, M. (1999). Codetermination and German Securities Markets. In M. Blair and M. Roe (eds.). Employees and Corporate Governance, Brookings Institution Press, Washington DC, pp. 194-205.
  • Säcker, F.J. (2008). Die Zukunft der Unternehmensmitbestimmung in Deutschalnd – Disharmonien im Zusammenspiel der verschiedenen Mitbestimmungsebenen. In Institut der deutschen Wirtschaft Köln (ed.) Perspektiven der Mitbestimmung in Deutschland, IW Symposien, Koln, pp. 147-165.
  • Stettes, O. (2007). Die Arbeitnehmermitbestimmung im Aufsichtsrat- Ergebnisse einer Unternehmesbefragung. IW-Trends, 34(1): 1-15.
  • Stettes, O. (2007). Unternehmensmitbestimmung in Deutschland – Vorteil oder Ballast im Standortwettbewerb? Institute for Law and Finance, Working Paper Series, No. 64.
  • Streeck, W. (2008). Zur Zukunft der Unternehmensmitbestimmung in Deutschland. In Institut der deutschen Wirtschaft Köln (ed.) Perspektiven der Mitbestimmung in Deutschland,IW Symposien, Köln, pp. 166-177.
  • Streeck, W. (1992). Co-determination: After Four Decades. In W. Streeck (ed.). Social Institutions and Economic Performance. Studies of Industrial Relations in Advanced Capitalist Economies, Sage, London, pp. 137-168.
  • Strunk, E. (2008)/ Aufsichtsräte und Mitbestimmung: Auswertungen der Umstellung deutscher AG’s auf die Rechtsform der Europäischen Aktiengesellschaft, Freie wissenschaftliche Arbeit zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades Diplom-Ökonomin, under the direction of Prof. Dr. Alexander gerybadze, University Hohenheim, Stuttgart.
  • Vitols, S. (2008). Beteiligung der Arbeitnehmervertreter in Aufsichtsratsausschüssen. Hans-Böckler Stiftung, Arbeitspapier No. 163.
  • Vitols, S. (2006). Ökonomische Auswirkungen der paritätischen Mitbestimmung: Eine ökonometrische Analyse. Gutachten im Auftrag des DGB Bundesvorstandes, Bereich Mitbestimmung und Unternehmenspolitik. Report to DGB.
  • Vulcheva, M. (2008). Employee Representation and the Management of Earnings. Mimeo, Goizueat Business School, Emory University, Atlanta.
  • Wagner, J. (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, 131(1): 91-106.
  • Wohnhas, F. (2013). The effect of German codetermination on firm value and short-termism. Masters dissertation under the supervision of Jens Martin, University of Amsterdam.
Greece
  • Koutroukis, T. and Jecchinis, C. (2010). Aspects of worker participation in Greece: A legal revolution and the evolution so far. EΠIΘEΩPHΣH EPΓAΣIAKΩN ΣXEΣEΩN, 59: 30-41.
  • Nerantzidis, M. and Filos, J. (2014). Recent corporate governance developments in Greece. Corporate Governance, 14(3): 281-299.
  • Papoulias, D. and Lioukas, S. (1995). Participation in the Management of Public Enterprises: Experience from Greek Utilities. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 66(3): 275-298.
  • Spanos, L. and Papoulias, D. (2005). Corporate Governance as an Instrument of Change State Owned Companies: The Case of the Hellenic Telecommunications Organization. University of Athens Economics Working Paper.
Hungary
  • Gróf, G., Kisgyörgy, S. and Lénárt, S. (2007). Dolgozói Képviselők a Gazdasági Társaságok Felügyelőbizottságaiban. Report to the Friedrich Ebert Foundation.
  • Kovacsics, P. (2012). Employee representation at board-level. The Hungarian regulation in a comparative corporate governance aspect. LL.M. dissertation under the supervision of Stefan Messmann, Central European University.
  • Neumann, L. (2006). New company act reduces roles of board-level employee representatives. EurWORK.
  • Vliegenthart, A. (2009). Who is undermining employee involvement in postsocialist supervisory boards? National, European and international forces in the revision of Hungarian company law. Journal for East European Management Studies, 14(3): 265-285.
  • Vliegenthart, A. (2007). Regulating employee representation in post-socialist supervisory boards, South-East Europe Review, 10(4): 67-82.
Ireland
  • Carley, M. (1998). Irish worker directors in a European perspective. Industrial Relations News, 14 May, 19: 14-17.
  • European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions. (eds.). (1983). Colloquium on the worker directors and his impact on the enterprise, Eurofound, Dublin.
  • Kelly, A. (1987). The Worker Director in Irish Industrial Relations. In Department of Industrial Relations, University College Dublin. (eds.). Industrial Relations in Ireland. Contemporary Issues and Developments, University College Dublin, Dublin, pp. 247-252.
  • Kelly, A. (1986). Integrating collective bargaining and worker participation at board level: The case of Ireland. In R. Stern and S. McCarthy (eds.). The organizational practice of democracy, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, pp. 407-429.
  • Kelly, A. and Hourihan, F. (1998). Employee Participation. In T. Murphy and W. Roche (eds.). Irish Industrial Relations in Practice: Revised and Expanded Edition, Oak Tree Press, Dublin, pp. 405-443.
  • Lee, F. (2007). Ireland’s Semi-State Bodies in a Time of Change. Department of Government Working Paper, No. 4.
  • TASC. (2012). Good for Business? Worker participation on boards. Think Tank for Action on Social Change, Dublin.
Luxembourg
  • Allegrezza, S. (2013). Le dialogue social au Luxembourg: Actualités et perspectives. Cahiers économiques, No. 115, Statec, Luxembourg-Kirchberg.
  • Clément, F. (2008). Les relations professionnelles au Luxembourg. EURES-CRD-REPREM, Luxembourg.
  • Conseil Économique et Social. (eds.). (1999). Le bilan de la loi de 1974 sur la représentation des salariés dans les conseils d’administration et la création de comités d’entreprise. 15 July, Luxembourg.
The Netherlands
  • Goodijk, R. (2010). Corporate governance and Works council: a Dutch perspective. Conference paper presented at the 9th IIRA European Congress, 28 June-1 July 2010, Copenhagen.
  • Goodijk, R. (2005). Supervisory Board and Works Council in the Netherlands. Corporate Board: role, duties and composition, 1(3): 46-60.
  • Goodijk, R. (2001). Corporate Governance and Workers’ Participation in the Netherlands. In P. Gollan, A. Hodgkinson, A. Chouraqui and U. Veersma. (eds.). Models of Employee Participation in a Changing Global Environment. Diversity and Interaction, Ashgate, Aldershot, pp. 179-192.
  • Rood, M. (1992). The Netherlands. Bulletin of Comparative Labour Relations, No. 23, Special Issue 'Workers’ Participation: Influence on Management Decision – Making by Labour in the Private Sector,' pp. 199-214.
Norway
  • Bøhren, Ø. and Strøm, Ø. (2010). Governance and Politics: Regulating Independence and Diversity in the Board Room. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 37(9-10): 1,281-1,308.
  • Bøhren, Ø. and Strøm, Ø. (2005). The value-creating board: Theory and evidence. BI Norwegian School of Management Research Report No. 8.
  • Byrkjeflot, H. (2001). The Nordic Model of Democracy and Management. In H. Byrkjeflot, S. Myklebust, T. Myrvang and F. Sejersted (eds.). The Democratic Challenge to Capitalism. Management and Democracy on the Nordic Countries. Fagbokforlaget, Bergen, pp. 19-50.
  • Emery, F.E. and Thorsrud, E. (1969). Form and Content in Industrial Democracy. Some Experiences from Norway and other European Countries. Tavistock Publications, London.
  • Falkum, E., Hagen, I.M. and Trygstad, S.C. (2010). Participation and codetermination among Norwegian employees – state of the art 2009. Union members and non union members compared. Conference paper presented at the 9th IIRA European Congress, 28 June-1 July 2010, Copenhagen.
  • Falkum, E., Hagen, I.M. and Trygstad, S.C. (2009). Bedriftsdemokratiets tilstand. Medbestemmelse, medvirkning og innflytelse i 2009. Fafo report No. 35.
  • Hagen, I.M. (2011). Medarbejdervalgte medlemmer av bestyrelsen. Hvorfor benytter ikke alitid de ansatte deres rettigheter? Tidsskrift for Arbejdsliv, 13(1): 47-63.
  • Hagen, I.M. (2011). Employee elected directors on company boards: Stakeholder representatives or the voice of labour? In R. Blanpain, W. Bromwich, O. Rymkevich and I. Senatori (eds.). Rethinking Corporate Governance: From Shareholder Value to Stakeholder Value, Kluwer law international, Alphen aan den Rijn, pp. 121-140.
  • Hagen, I.M. (2010). Det mektige mindretallet. Ansatterepresentasjon i styret mellom Corporate Governance og Industrial Relations. Doktoravhandling. Fafo report No. 2.
  • Hagen, I.M. (2010). Board level representation – still an unused resource? Conference paper presented at the 9th IIRA European Congress, 28 June-1 July 2010, Copenhagen.
  • Hagen, I.M. (2008). Ansatte styrerepresentanter – hvor mange og hvor finner vi dem? Søkelys på arbeidslivet, 25(3): 331-341.
  • Hagen, I.M. (2008). Ansatte i styret. Statusrapport 2007. Fafo report No. 9.
  • Hagen, I.M. (2007). Employee representatives (ERs) at board level – ensuring productivity or democracy at work? Conference paper presented at the 8th European Congress of the IIRA, 3-6 September, Manchester.
  • Hagen, I.M. (2005). Ansattes styrerepresentanter – motstandere, samarbeidspartnere eller B-medlemmer? Fafo report No. 502.
  • Hagen, I.M. and Huse, M. (2007). Do employee representatives make a difference on corporate boards? Examples from Norway. In U. Jürgens, D. Sadowski, G.F. Schuppert and M. Weiss (eds.). Perspektiven der Corporate Governance. Bestimmungsfaktoren unternehmerischer. Entscheidungsprozesse und Mitwirkung der Arbeitnehmer. Nomos, Baden Baden, pp. 156-181.
  • Huse, M., Nielsen, S.T. and Hagen, I.M. (2009). Women and Employee-Elected Board Members, and Their Contributions to Board Control Tasks. Journal of Business Ethics, 89(4): 581-597.
  • Strøm, Ø. (2008). Three essays on corporate boards. BI Norwegian School of Management, Department of Financial Economics, Series of Dissertations, No. 1.
Poland
  • Matey, M. (1992). Poland. Bulletin of Comparative Labour Relations, 23, Special Issue 'Workers’ Participation: Influence on Management Decision – Making by Labour in the Private Sector,' pp. 215-220.
  • Skupień, D. (2011). The statute for a European company and the Polish model of employee involvement. In R. Blanpain, W. Bromwich, O. Rymkevich and I. Senatori (eds.). Rethinking corporate governance: from shareholder value to stakeholder value, Kluwer law international, Alphen aan den Rijn, pp. 105-119.
  • Skupień, D. (2011). Board-level employee participation in Polish limited-liability companies. In G. Löschnigg (ed.). Arbeitnehmerbeteiligung in Unternehmensorganen im internationalen Vergleich, Verlag des ÖGB, Vienna, pp. 139-159.
Slovenia
  • Andrenšek, I. (2007). Upravljanje gospodarskih družb v Sloveniji: Razprava o vlogi in pomenu predstavnikov delavcev v nadzornih svetih, Academic thesis, University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Economics.
  • Bakovnik, R. (2004). Kolektivna (posredna) participacija. Delavsko predstavništvo v nadzornem svetu. Industrijska demokracija, No. 3.
  • Bakovnik, R. (2003). Slovenski model delavske participacije. Industrijska demokracija, No. 3.
  • Bakovnik, R., Polič, M., Peršak, C., Pogačnik V. and Gostiša, M. (2000). Vpliv delavske participacije na poslovno uspešnost. Research report from ŠCID (Študijski Center za Industrijsko Demokracijo), funded by the Ministry of Labour.
  • Bratina (1999). Pravni položaj delavskih predstavnikov v nadzornih svetih. Industrijska demokracija, No. 9.
  • Gostiša, M. (2004). Specifike položaja delavskih predstavnikov v nadzornem svetu. Industrijska demokracija, No. 11.
  • Gostiša, M. (2004). Čigave interese in na kakšen način zastopajo predstavniki delavcev v nadzornem svetu. Industrijska demokracija, No. 1.
  • Gostiša, M. (2001). Struktura, način kadrovanja in usposobljenost delavskih predstavnikov v nadzornih svetih. Research report from ŠCID (Študijski Center za Industrijsko Demokracijo).
  • Gostiša, M. (2001). Odprta vprašanja delovanja delavskih predsavnikov v nadzornih svetih. Industrijska demokracija, No. 5.
  • Gostiša, M. (2001). Sistemske dileme o vlogi in načinu delovanja delavskih predstavnikov v nadzornem svetu, Joint statement from the Slovanian Directors’ Association and the Association of Workers in Slovenian Companies.
  • Gostiša, M. (2001). Delavska predstavništva v nadzornih svetih. Odgovorno trdim, da… Industrijska demokracija, No. 4.
  • Gostiša, M. (1997). Predstavništvo delavcev v nadzornem svetu. Industrijska demokracija, No. 5.
  • Gregorič, A., Prašnikar, J. and Ribnikar, I. (2000). Corporate Governance in Transitional Economies: The Case of Slovenia. Economic and Business Review for Central and South-Eastern Europe, 2(3): 183-207.
  • Hojnik, J. (2008). Corporate governance reform in Slovenia and the current place of workers’ voice. Transfer, 14(1): 137-141.
  • Končar, P. (2008). EU v. National Industrial Relations: The Slovenian Perspective. In M. Rönnmar (ed.). EU Industrial Relations v. National Industrial Relations. Comparative and Interdisciplinary Perspectives, Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn, pp. 41-53
  • Miklič, G. (1999). Kdo so lahko delavski predstavniki v nadzornih svetih. Industrijska demokracija, No. 2.
  • Prašnikar, J. and Gregorič, A. (2002). The influence of workers’ participation on the power of management in transitional countries: the case of Slovenia. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 73(2): 269-297.
  • Šarman, Z. (2001). Kdo in zakaj se boji delavskih predstavnikov v nadzornih svetih. Industrijska demokracija, No. 5.
  • Senčur Peček, D. (2011). The participation of employees in company bodies as regulated in law oft he Republic of Slovenia. In G. Löschnigg (ed.) Arbeitnehmerbeteiligung in Unternehmensorganen im internationalen Vergleich, Verlag des ÖGB, Vienna, pp. 161-189.
  • Utroša, M. (1998). Works councils and co-determination in Slovenia. South- East Europe Review, 1(2): 23-36.
  • ZSDSP. (1999). Teorija in praksa delovanja delavskih predstavnikov v nadzornih svetih.
Spain
  • Barroso, M. (2001). Modelos clásicos y sistemas nuevos de participación de los trabajadores en la empresa. Temas Laborales, 62: 31-68.
  • Castro Argüelles, M.A. (2014). Participación de los trabajadores en la empresa. Revista del Ministerio de Empleo y Seguridad Social, 108: 319-355.
  • Galiana Moreno, J.M. and García Romero, B. (2003). La participación y representación de los trabajadores en la empresa en el modelo normativo español. Revista del Ministerio de Trabajo y Asuntos Sociales, 43: 13-30.
  • Landa Zapirain, J.C. (2007). Las nuevas formas de participación en la empresa. In Ministerio de Trabajo y Asuntos Sociales (eds.). Gobierno de la empresa y participación de los trabajadores: viejas y nuevas formas institucionales, Madrid, pp. 649-707.
  • Palomeque López, M.C. (2007). La participación de los trabajadores en la empresa (une revisión institucional). In Ministerio de Trabajo y Asuntos Sociales (eds.). Gobierno de la empresa y participación de los trabajadores: viejas y nuevas formas institucionales, Madrid, pp. 33-65.
Sweden
  • Adams, R.B., Licht, A.N. and Sagiv, L. (2011). Shareholders and Stakeholders: How do Directors Decide? Strategic Management Journal, 32(12): 1,331-1,355.
  • Berggren, C. (1986). Top management and codetermination in Swedish companies: greater union influence results in better decisions. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 7: 99-108.
  • Berglund, T. and Holmén, M. (2015). Why employees choose to be represented on corporate boards. Paper presented at the European Financial Management Association 2015 Annual Meeting, Amsterdam (NL), 24-27 June.
  • Berglund, T., Holmén, M. and Rana, R. (2013). Causes and consequences of employee representation on corporate boards. Paper presented at the conference Twenty years after Cadbury, then years after Sarbanes-Oxley: Challenges of corporate governance, Bath (UK), 24-25 June.
  • Bruun, N. (2006). The Corporate Governance Agenda and Employee Representation on Company Boards in the EU and the Nordic Countries. In B. Bercusson (ed.). Paths to progress. Mapping innovation on information, consultation and participation for employee involvement in corporate governance, SDA, Brussels, pp. 38-46.
  • Carlsson, R.H. (2007). Swedish Corporate Governance and Value Creation: owners still in the driver’s seat. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 15(6): 1,038-1,055.
  • Fahlbeck, R. (2007). Employee participation in Sweden. In U. Jürgens, D. Sadowski, G.F. Schuppert and M. Weiss (eds.). Perspektiven der Corporate Governance. Bestimmungsfaktoren unternehmerischer. Entscheidungsprozesse und Mitwirkung der Arbeitnehmer, Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp. 132-155.
  • Habbard, P. (2008). Corporate Governance in Sweden – An International Trade Union Perspective. Report to the Hans Böckler Foundation.
  • Levinson, K. (2001). Employee representatives on company boards in Sweden. Industrial Relations, 32(3): 264-274.
  • Levinson, K. (2000). Codetermination in Sweden: Myth and Reality. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 21(4): 457-473.
  • Levinson, K. (1996). Codetermination in Sweden: From Separation to Integration. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 17(1): 131-142.
  • Lundberg, M. and Bruun, N. (2005). Stryrelserepresentation på undantag – Corporate Governance-debattens tysta reformprogram. Arbetsmarknad & Arbetsliv, 11(4): 217-234.
  • Movitz, F. and Levinson, K. (2013). Employee board representation in the Swedish private sector. In A. Sandberg (ed.). Nordic lights. Work, management and welfare in Scandinavia, SNS förlag, Stockholm, pp 471-484.
  • Palmberg, J. (2012). The performance effect of corporate board of directors. European Journal of Law and Economics, published online 13 December.
  • PTK. (2015). Bolagsstyrelseledamot. En handbook för arbetstagarrepresentanter i bolagstyrelser. PTK, Stockholm.
  • Rönnmar, M. (2008). Information, Consultation and Worker Participation – An Aspect of EU Industrial Relations from the Swedish Point of View. In M. Rönnmar (ed.). EU Industrial Relations v. National Industrial Relations. Comparative and Interdisciplinary Perspectives, Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn, pp. 15-39.
  • Victorin, A. (2000). Employee Participation on the Company Board: The Swedish Experience. Paper presented at Company Law Reform in OECD Countries – A Comparative Outlook of Current Trends, 7-8 December, Stockholm.
  • Wallenberg, J. and Levinson, K. (2012). Anställdas styrelserepresentation I svenskt näringsliv. Vad har hänt mellan 1999 och 2009? Arbetsmarknad & Arbetsliv, 18(3): 67-80.
  • Wheeler, J. (2002). Employee Involvement in Action: Reviewing Swedish Codetermination. Labor Studies Journal, 26(4): 71-97.
United Kingdom
  • Bank, J. (1977). Worker directors speak. The British Steel corporation employee directors. Gower Press, Westmead.
  • Batstone, E., Ferner, A. and Terry, M. (1983). Unions on the Board. An experiment in industrial democracy. Basil Blackwell, Oxford.
  • Brannen, P., Batstone, E., Fatchett D. and White, P. (1976). The worker directors. A sociology of participation. Hutchinson, London.
  • Bullock, Lord A. (1977). Report of the committee of inquiry on industrial democracy, Cmnd 6706, Her Majesty’s Stationary Office, London.
  • Chell, E. and Cox, D. (1979). Worker directors and collective bargaining. Industrial Relations Journal, 10(3): 25-31.
  • Davies, P. (1975). Employee representation on company boards and participation in corporate planning. The Modern Law Review, 38(3): 254-273.
  • Gold, M. (2005). Worker directors in the UK and the limits of policy transfer from Europe since the 1970s. Historical studies in industrial relations, 20: 29-65.
  • McGaughey, E. (2014). British Codetermination and the Churchillian Circle. UCL Labour Right Institute Working paper No. 2/2014.
  • Sheridan, J. (2014). Securing a decent deal for workers: employee representatives on boards. Centre for labour and social studies, London.
  • Williamson, J., Driver, C. and Kenway, P. (2014). Beyond shareholder value. The reasons and choices for corporate reform. Trades Union Congress (TUC), London.
  • Williamson, J. and Page, T. (2015). Workers’ voice in company decision-making. In D. Bailey, K. Cowling and P. Tomlinson (eds.). New perspectives on industrial policy for a modern Britain, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 225-240.