Abstract
Recent events in law and public policy, in scholarly development and research controversy, and in practical innovations call for a clarification and specification of what is meant by the term the worker-ownedfirm. What seems an uncomplicated idea turns out to embody conceptual problems. We propose a careful definition that includes three broad forms of worker-owned ventures but excludes other organizational forms that may be confused with them. The promptings and considerations for the elements of the definition are presented. These include specification of goals and goal hierarchies, legal formalities, passive and active ownership rights, and the integration of all these in various organizational forms.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
