This blogpost ‘Timacapitalism’ is a more concise description of the concept ‘co-operativecapitalism’ first outlined on the website www.co-operativecapitalism.com , without all the supporting research and ancillary findings.
 
Capitalism
 
We cannot deny the benefits of pre millennium capitalism. Free market capitalism has created developments that have been enormously beneficial to the living standards of mankind. That entrepreneurs are more creative, inventive, industrious, tenacious, risk averse or more philanthropic has benefitted living standards in countless ways.
 
Capitalism Developments
 
Bo Rothstein [12]- commented in the Swedish documentary ‘Can We Do It Ourselves’:

‘Today’s capitalism is very different to how it used to be back in the day. Back then there were hard working individuals who owned the capital, had the skills, the initiative and the abilities, and who also helped to run the business. Today for example, more than 80% of the Swedish stock exchange is owned by investment funds, pension funds and so on. They lack the interest, ability or control of production and they do not really care. No doubt there are similar statistics on other share markets.’

‘There is a difference between how capitalism is marketed and how capitalism actually works. It is marketed with these models … the idea of the free market, the choosing consumer and the idea that the consumer is ultimately in charge. In reality, however, many corporations strive for monopoly. Many corporations want exclusive power over the market and will do whatever it takes to get that power, sometimes being granted by Governments. Historically, striving for that power has led to war, plundering and colonialism. Today corporations try to manipulate governments to enforce particular rules that suit certain interests and thus invest heavily in persuasive lobbying. Advertisement is another way and also buying up competing companies taking them out of the market. The free market can be a means for certain capitalists to take over the market in order to abolish the free market because they want monopoly power.’

‘Businesses work really hard not to have competition and free markets. The really big money is to be made in markets that are not free, that are not competitive. This is the single idea that we really have to understand. Free markets and competition are really good things, but businesses will move heaven and earth not to have to operate in such environments.’

‘Power becomes the dominating principle not efficiency, not social well-being, not environmental concern for our planet, and not life fulfilment for individuals.’
 
Capitalism through its evolution has undoubtedly been beneficial to living standards for the vast majority. Capitalism’s evolution, however, has also been subject to lobbying by vested interests. In countries where political parties rely on member and corporate donations for campaign funding, it is inevitable that domestic and foreign policies can be influenced, particularly by major corporate political supporters. This leads to situation where powerful bankers and international corporates can influence government policy.
 
According to the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), numerous corporations are now bigger than many nation states. Some measures suggest that half of the world’s largest economies are multinational global corporates, and that General Motors is bigger than Denmark, that DaimlerChrysler is bigger than Poland; Royal Dutch /Shell bigger than Venezuela, and Sony bigger than Pakistan.
 
Bo Rothstein - commented again on the Swedish documentary ‘Can We Do It Ourselves’:
‘Like the aristocratic ownership of huge tracts of land, which in 1791 Tom Paine attacked in his book ‘The Rights Of Man’, these large corporate productive assets remain effectively in the hands of a very few, very rich people, and make our claims to real democracy look pretty thin. In Tom Paine’s lifetime the capitalist system was in its infancy. As an advocate of equality and democracy, he focused his attack on the landed aristocracy, the nobility, the monarchy, and on their ownership of huge swathes of land. He seems to have assumed that the market system, then involving mainly small traders and craftsmen, would remain small-scale, fairly egalitarian, and so compatible with democracy. Had he foreseen how the development of huge multinational corporations would surpass the concentrations of wealth and undemocratic power of his day, he would surely have included them in his sights. The classical figure John Stuart Mill, a leader of classical liberalism, took it for granted that the workplace would be under the control of the people that worked there. Go back further to Adam Smith (or David Hulme), they argued that a fundamental feature of human nature is sympathy for others. He also took for granted along with other classical liberals that a society should be designed so that it provides the most extensive possible support for the fulfilment of individual capacities. The creation of opportunities for people to live their creative and fulfilling lives, and so on, and I think if you trended it – if you go beyond what they were talking about and asked what sort of society they envisaged. I think it is quite consistent with the conclusion that Mill drew explicitly – a kind of economic democracy’.      
 
We know from a reading of Yuval Harari's book 'Sapiens' (published by Penguin 2011) that established institutions are not necessarily functioning in the most advantageous way.  As Harari showed us, they are not based on an objective reality but rather they are myths that have been agreed upon as they evolved. Capitalism has evolved, and was shaped, from times when employees would have been illiterate, which opened the door for exploitation and greed resulting in the emergence of trade unionism.
 
 
 
Sociological Changes
 
Since the Industrial Revolution there has been major advancements in technology which continues at an accelerated pace, but our lives have also been subject to sociological changes.
 
From Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett’s book 'The Spirit Level'[8]

‘People’s sense of identity used to be embedded in the community to which they belonged, in people’s real knowledge of each other. Now, in increasingly mobile and fast changing times, it is cast adrift in the anonymity of mass society. Familiar faces have been replaced by a constant flux of strangers. People used to grow up knowing, and being known by, many of the same people all their lives. Although geographical mobility has been increasing for several generations, the last half century has seen a particularly rapid rise. At the beginning of this period, it was still common for people – in rural and urban areas alike – never to have travelled much beyond the boundaries of their immediate city or village community. Married brothers and sisters, parents and grandparents, tended to remain living nearby and the community consisted of people who had often known each other for much of their lives. But now that so many people move from where they grew up, knowledge of neighbours tends to be superficial or non-existent. As a result, who we are, identity itself, is endlessly open to question.’

‘It is a remarkable paradox that at the pinnacle of human material and technological achievement, we find ourselves anxiety ridden, prone to depression, worried about how others see us, unsure of our friendships, driven to consume, with little or no community life, and an alienated sense of not being part of a larger purpose. Lacking the relaxed social contact and emotional satisfaction we all need, we seek comfort in over-eating, obsessive shopping and spending, or becoming prey to excessive alcohol, psychoactive medicines and illegal drugs.’
 
An important psychological need of people is the sense of belonging to, or being part of, a wider grouping. Quoting Yuval Harari from the book 'Sapiens' p.403 (published by Penguin 2011) 'Millions of years of evolution have designed us to live and think as community members. Within a mere two centuries we have become alienated individuals'.
Although undoubtedly beneficial in raising living standards, capitalism, and other cultural changes, have undermined that sense of belonging and the high levels of antidepressant use, and high levels of suicide are results of an increased feeling of alienation within society.
 
A common need in human society across all cultures is the need to belong and be accepted by others. A sense of belonging is crucial to our life satisfaction, happiness, mental and physical health and even longevity. It gives us a sense of purpose and meaning. Research has shown that loss of belonging has been associated with stress, illness and decreased wellbeing and depression. Abraham Maslow ranked the need for belonging as the next level up after physiological needs (like food and sleep) and safety needs in his 'Hierarchy of Needs'.

We can take a lead from the Maori proverb ‘What is the most important thing in the world? ‘He tangata, he tangata, he tangata.’ It is the people. It is the people. It is the people.
 
 



American Foreign Policy
 
The neoliberal campaign of the 1990’s, the Ronald Regan era, was very successful in removing most constraints on the operations of capitalism, allowing for less regulated more predatory, more extractive capitalism.
 
Political campaigning in America requires immense financial support, and, if it is powerful banks and corporates providing that financial support, it is inevitable that they will influence policy decisions that are beneficial to their continued prosperity.

At the end of the second world war America was by far the most powerful country economically in the world. With that status and the World War 2 experience we may have expected that America would have championed free sovereign democratic nations. The leader of the free world has not necessarily wanted to expand the number of free sovereign democracies. American Foreign policy has followed a doctrine as articulated by the President Clinton administration where he declared that the ‘United States has the right to use military force to ensure uninhibited access to key markets, energy supplies, and strategic resources, and must maintain huge military forces forward deployed in Europe and Asia, in order to shape people’s opinions about us and to shape events that will affect our livelihood and our security’. Furthermore, the United States has used persuasive questionable strategies to undermine left leaning political regimes, in order to maintain an element of control on regions. Free trade agreements with America have included clauses which give American businesses the right to sue trading nations if American businesses encounter restrictions on access to markets or resources. With a status of having the most powerful economy in the world America has managed to create a lot of anti-American feeling with its foreign policies. American interests that align with the doctrine articulated by the Clinton adminstration are better served by having compliant authoritative regimes rather than risk a democratic populus with anti-American views. The doctrine expressed by President Clinton intended to give stability and certainty of access for American interests has had the opposite outcome of destabilising the world and in many countries creating deep anti-American sentiment.

Very powerful banks and corporates that support American political parties are more aligned with the doctrine articulated by the Clinton administration than in developing a more just world. It is of no interest that these powerful banks and corporates would want people to live more creative and fulfilling lives in a peaceful world, as envisaged by the classical figure John Stuart Mill, the leader of classical liberalism.

Keeping the people moderately happy but controlled is fertile ground for corporate riches, except that the majority of the people are not moderately happy. The pursuit of power and control has destabilised the world.

If the influence of very powerful bankers and corporates has led to the destabilising foreign policy of the most powerful country in the world, is it not time for the people of the world to reassert our humanity? The goals of powerful banks and corporates are more in line with control, expanded access and prosperity and not with human well-being.

Eion Musk is claiming that brain implants could change the world, Timacapitalism could change the world in a far more positive way by reasserting our humanity.

Tima Capitalism

The concept of Timacapitalism arises from merging the benefits of capitalism, free enterprise and wealth creation, with the productivity and social benefits existing in co-operative culture enterprises and has been driven primarily by the three following beliefs.

1. That the vast majority of people when treated with trust and respect will live up to expectations and very often respond beyond expectations, and: -
 2. That the majority of people are willing to contribute to a larger well-intentioned endeavour.
 3. There are unrealised talents among people generally that will emerge when employees are part of an inclusive culture.
 
Good management will create the inclusive co-operative culture that maximises the contribution of employees toward business success.
 
And again, in a London Financial Times article by Brian Groom following the global financial crisis in 2008.….’Companies that learn how to make the most of their human capital are likely to be the winners. There is no greater challenge facing the corporate world than the need to unlock the productive power of people’… ‘It will be the employers that best harness the skills of their employees that will succeed’.
 
Timacapitalism is a surprisingly simple minor refinement to capitalism that will give improved productivity, more profits, more employee loyalty, more engaged synergetic employees and easier management. The concept still supports the positive aspect of capitalism allowing for entrepreneurial activity and wealth creation. Additionally, the potential for universal application, gives a vision of a better world that brings people together and reasserts our humanity.
 
Timacapitalism implements a common bond that all employees qualify for equally, and the concept can be applied to any company of more than three employees.
 
A framework of a common bond for all employees within a workplace can create an inclusive culture even though the remuneration from this common bond framework is but a small proportion of an employee’s total remuneration. The concept is relatively simple but the power is in the intent that management now sees employees in an employee partnership as distinct from shareholders or investor partnership, and the transparency of equal qualification for the common bond portion of remuneration will generate the synergetic engaged cooperative workplace culture that will ensure business success.

All employees qualify for Timacapitalism payments equally. This becomes a common bond for all employees throughout an enterprise from CEO down. The transparency of its application is one facet of building enterprise-wide trust and co-operation.

The important differing aspect of a Timacapitalism payment is that it is not an individual performance bonus; it is a co-operative culture common bond – the cement that binds the co-operative team together. Employees are respected as co-partners in success and all employees participate in the benefits of success at this level in an equitable manner. In these co-operative workplaces performance related remuneration will be reflected in an employee’s contracted or baseline remuneration although the possibility of some employees being on performance bonuses (e.g. sales targets being met) can coexist with Timacapitalism.

Another innovative aspect is that timacapitalism annual payments are recorded separately from normal remuneration on the employee’s tax return and these timacapitalism payments have a fixed low tax rate (possibly 5% less than the lowest tax rate) for all recipients, regardless of their normal remuneration tax level. This will not equate to lower tax revenue as there is a phased 4-year transition to the maximum timacapitalism payment and within that time there will be higher productivity and much improved enterprise performance and consequently more tax revenue. 

After one year of employment an employee attains level one timacapital qualifying Unit.

After two years of employment an employee attains two Timacapital qualifying Units.

After four years of employment an employee attains three Timacapital qualifying Units.

After six years of employment an employee attains receives the maximum level of four Timacapital qualifying Units.
 
Of course, the starting point for any discussion of motivation in the workplace is that people have to earn a living. The salaries, contract payments, benefits, a few perks are what I call ‘baseline rewards. If someone’s baseline rewards are not adequate or equitable, their focus will be on the unfairness of their situation and the anxiety of their circumstance. The result is neither the predictability of extrinsic motivation nor the weirdness of intrinsic motivation. You will get little motivation at all.

Remuneration for qualifications, responsibilities, management and performance are already in place in baseline remuneration and additionally all employees are qualifying equally for the Timacapitalism payments. This transparency of qualification and transparency of payment benefits for all employees at this one level of the remuneration package, creates a culture where Timacapitalism payment prospects become a talking point throughout an enterprise from CEO to shop floor, and a real sense of being a ‘part of’ the co-operative team for enterprise success.

My life experience tells me that if people know they are respected and trusted, they live up to expectations. The laggards that choose not to be a collaborative team member will have the consequence of losing their employment.
 
This framework creates a climate where employees are more involved in the workings of capitalism and the common bond of Timacapitalism payments ensures that they act as a teamwork community and not as property brought together and used to earn a return on other people’s capital. What entrepreneur would not want all employees motivated for the success of their employing enterprise.
 
Non-profit making endeavours can utilise this framework by having criteria other than increased profit for measuring success e.g. meeting or surpassing budget goals, meeting or surpassing service goals, expanding the customer base, growing the business.


The initiative being proposed is a minor refinement to capitalism initially termed ‘Timacapitalism’ that will give improved productivity, more profits, more employee loyalty, more engaged synergetic employees and easier management.

Some of the benefits that can be anticipated from a co-operative workplace culture are describe in the following link: -
​
http://www.co-operativecapitalism.com/blog-posts/benefits-of-a-co-operative-workplace-culture
 
It is a surprisingly simple framework that gives us a more people centric capitalism, which will dovetail with the Maori proverb ‘What is the most important thing in the world? ‘He tangata, he tangata, he tangata.’ It is the people. It is the people. It is the people.

This innovative initiative will naturally become a focal point for new attitudes.
 
This surprisingly simple framework has no initiating cost, no running cost and no risk. The power is in the intent, the intent 'That employees are recognised as employee partners in business success.' 

If we retain the potential for entrepreneurial activity and wealth creation, can we not also have a more inclusive model for capitalisms business endeavours. A more people centric form of capitalism, a capitalism workplace framework that is inclusive, a framework creating a common bond that all employees qualify for equally that will give higher productivity, improved social cohesion, more employee engagement, easier management, more employee loyalty, more hope and happiness.
 
This concept can be one thing that unites us, and all participants are winners. Businesses get what they want, higher productivity, more profits, easier management and more employee engagement, more loyalty, and a potential step to a breakdown of inequality and there is no longer the need for power and control.
 
Employees can identify with a larger success story creating more motivation and work satisfaction. The surprisingly simple framework has universal application and in the larger picture employees are assisting a worldwide movement in reasserting our humanity.

​A driving belief in this common bond concept is that people, when included with trust and respect, will respond positively, they will live up to expectations and very often respond beyond expectations.

An important psychological need of people is the sense of belonging to, or being part of, a wider grouping. Quoting Yuval Harari from the book 'Sapiens' p.403 (published by Penguin 2011) 'Millions of years of evolution have designed us to live and think as community members.  Within a mere two centuries we have become alienated individuals'.
 
Although undoubtedly beneficial in raising living standards, capitalism, and other cultural changes, have undermined that sense of belonging and the high levels of antidepressant use and high levels of suicide are results of an increased feeling of alienation within society.
 
The Spirit Level – Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett

 ‘For several decades progressive politics have been seriously weakened by the lack of any concept of a better society. People have argued for piecemeal improvements in different areas of life, campaigned against new environmental threats or for better treatment of asylum seekers, and have demonstrated against military interventions. But nowhere is there a popular movement capable of inspiring people with a vision of how to make society a substantially better place to live for the vast majority. Without that vision politics will rarely provoke more than a yawn.’

‘Mainstream politics no longer taps into these issues and has abandoned the attempt to provide a shared vision capable of inspiring us to create a better society. As voters, we have lost sight of any collective belief that society could be different. Instead of a better society, the only thing almost everyone strives for is to better their own position - as individuals - within society.’

‘Having come to the end of what higher material living standards can offer us, we are the first generation to have to find other ways of improving our real quality of life.’
 
It is proposed that in time a government will allow for annual Timacapitalism payments to be recorded separately from PAYE on Tax returns and will be taxed at a fixed low tax rate for ALL employees, regardless of their current tax rate on PAYE. By taxing co-operation payments at a fixed low rate for ALL employees, the government will be encouraging teamwork and cooperative cultures in participating workplaces, and thereby dramatically improving productivity. This will not result in a reduction of tax revenue as there will be a phased introduction accompanied by increased productivity and profitability. The framework can be applied to any workplace of more than three employees and has a constraint that an employee’s co-operative payments cannot exceed 20% of standard employee remuneration.


Progressive management teams embarking on a co-operative capitalism framework will see employees as employee co-partners in success as distinct from investor partners in success.
  

Not only is this refinement to capitalism more inclusive, but arising from more widespread adoption of the framework, the ensuing social cohesion will beneficially impact on health, happiness and hope and probably reduce health budgets. More social cohesion would counter the detrimental alienating outcome of neo liberal capitalism, more social cohesion will also be beneficial in policy imperatives for combating climate change.
 
The co-operative capitalism concept has been supported in recent times by American research findings on human motivation as detailed in Daniel Pink’s book ‘Drive’ [1] published in 2009 by Riverhead.
 
 
 
Comments on Capitalism.

Regardless of the origins of capitalism, it is a human construct that has been allowed to evolve to a point where the very benefits of capitalism in its infancy have now been eroded as detailed in the website Blog Post ‘Commentaries on the Failings of Capitalism’ dated 24th April 2019 (Co-operative capitalism Blog Posts), we are also seeing high levels of employee disengagement, high levels of social alienation (The sense of not feeling a part of a collective goal or hopeful social vision), increased inequality and more widespread stress and use of depression medication. Thomas Piketty’s book ‘Capitalism the Twenty First Century’ published following the World Financial Crisis 2008 questioned the myth at the very heart of American life – that capitalism improves the quality of life for everyone. This is just not so, says Piketty, and he makes his case in a clear and rigorous manner that debunks everything that capitalists believe about the ethical status of making money, he also argued that we may well find that the 21st century will be a century of greater inequality, and therefore greater social discord, than the 19th century. Piketty stated that current trends in capitalism are creating increases in inequality that are unsustainable.
 

The co-operative capitalism common bond concept just makes darned good sense from every angle whether it be economically, socially and politically. The company wins, management becomes easier, employees win and investors win.
 
The website details the potential benefits of the co-operative capitalism framework: -

http://www.co-operativecapitalism.com/blog-posts/benefits-of-a-co-operative-workplace-culture
 
In addition to improved productivity, profitability and social cohesion there are other advantages from this framework.  A finance minister will have a mechanism of encouraging co-operation by reducing the Timacapitalism payment tax level whilst incrementally increasing the PAYE tax level, if fiscally prudent to do so, and thereby encouraging more co-operative workplace cultures. The framework may also be utilised to encourage a collective effort against climate change. Any co-operative capitalism business that reduces its carbon footprint during a financial year can earn an additional tax reduction on the employee’s Timacapitalism payments.  
 
The presentation of the web site is persuasive toward business by predicting improved productivity and profitability, however, the wider more important goals are social.
 
In the initial years of business there may not be sufficient profit to allocate an amount to the Timacapitalism payment level for employees, but employees will be accruing Timacapitalism qualifying units through their employment years of service and therefore will benefit in profitable years.

Following successful years, a Board of Directors have an additional consideration when deciding on the allocation of profits, i.e. when considering the amount to distribute for each Timacapitalism qualifying unit, very importantly they must at least maintain the ongoing synergetic contribution of all employees.
 
This framework creates a climate where employees are more involved in the workings of capitalism. Employees looking forward to the prospective level of timacapitalism payment have to recognise that enterprise success is not always directly related to workplace productivity and is also subject to the vagaries of capitalism e.g. commodity prices, competitors or downturns in markets. Business cycles are a reality of the marketplace, but with all employees working as a team, timacapitalism companies will weather the downturns and prosper in the good times.

I foresee that the most capable employees in the future will choose employment with progressive management teams i.e. those companies that have embraced the timacapitalism concept. 
 
The companies that make the best use of their human capital will be the most successful companies.
 
Daniel Pink’s book ‘Drive’ was published in 2009. He suggested that maybe we can reassert our humanity and change the world, it was a response to the research findings on human motivation and that the findings could rejuvenate business.
 
Benefits of Co-operation

The wider social benefits will be in lower levels of mental illness, criminal activity, medication, obesity and illegal drug use whilst seeing more community involvement, less alienation, increased voluntary endeavours and very significantly more hope, pride and happiness and probably reduced health budgets.

Climate Change

Global warming is occurring and when certain thresholds are crossed there will be no reverse options.

John Kerry ‘USA Secretary of State’
‘Ninety seven per cent of peer reviewed climate studies confirm that climate change is happening and that human activity is largely responsible. That is a dramatic statement of fact that no one of good conscience has a right to ignore.
​
Future generations will judge our effort not just as a policy thing but as a collective moral failure of historic consequences. They will want to know how world leaders could possibly have been so blind or so ignorant or so ideological or so dysfunctional, frankly so stubborn that we failed to act on knowledge that was confirmed by so many scientists and so many studies over such a long period of time, documented by so much evidence.’

The collaborative effort of 196 countries in Paris (November ’15) in setting targets to limit global warming is very admirable. The recent accord is an example of collaboration by many highly diverse countries. The Timacapitalism concept is a policy initiative for an ‘era of co-operative capitalism’ that will dovetail neatly with the purpose larger than ourselves motivation. If we all work together, we all win.



A more co-operative world will enable us to perceive huge issues such as the struggle against climate change as collective issues. Together, we do have the power to tackle any problem, however huge, and work out solutions to pressing problems that affect us worldwide. 

If the most intelligent species on Earth continues allowing climate change to make life unlivable on this miracle planet home, that would be a madness beyond comprehension.

​That the majority of humankind would enter into a more co-operative era would, of itself, have a significantly positive effect on geopolitical, religious, alienation, health and poverty differences around the world.

My grounding for proposing a framework that encourages a co-operative culture is that I have worked in over 30 types of employment, in companies comprising from three and up to thousands of employees and also self-employment. I have been part of highly productive, innovative teams within non-profit and profit-making organisations. This background has shown me that collective co-operative endeavours are productive and have additional social benefits. The paper does not attempt to meet an academic rigorous examination and is more of an autoethnographic approach. I have the conviction that the ideas expressed here are sound and are worth exploring. Furthermore, I am the father of a fifteen-year-old boy and I have real concern for his generation and the environment we bequeath to them, their future quality of life and ability to enjoy this miracle planet earth.

There are those who would label this concept as socialist, but socialism involves ownership and ownership is rightfully created through enterprise and market value purchase. Others will see a smart capitalism and an affirmation of the benefits of free enterprise. What entrepreneur would not want all employees working actively together for the success of the enterprise? 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Critical Comments

Tima capitalism and the concept of a common bond for all employees has been criticised on two counts only: -

• That employees at the lowest remuneration levels will be receiving the benefit of Timacapitalism payments disproportionally to their actual contribution to the company’s financial performance.
• That the concept does not lend itself to public service employments and other non-profit making workplaces.

 
Response
There are two constraints on the amount of timacapitalism payment an employee can receive.

1.There is an overriding caveat to the amount of Timacapitalism payment an employee may receive - 'that the total amount cannot exceed 20% of the employees total basic remuneration'.
2. If an employee’s gross income is less than the average income for all employees, the timacapitalism payment amount will be scaled back by that percentage difference.
 
Neither of these constraints are to be seen as penalties but rather an incentive for an employee to improve their skill levels and take on more responsibility and thereby increase their base remuneration level which in turn will give an increased benefit from timacapitalism payments. It therefore creates an aspiration to self-achieve which is a basic tenet of capitalism.
 
Capitalism has evolved through many refinements and that will be so with timacapitalism. When a goal is worthwhile achieving, we can determine to progressively bring those employees into the timacapitalism framework.  Public service employees can progressively become part a timacapitalism framework by the achievement of pre-determined budget goals and ultimately receive a timacapitalism payment that is the average for profit making businesses. They will reciprocally be playing their part in a healthy society through the efficiency and productivity of their public services employment. There will be more social cohesiveness, a natural permanent feature of healthy society.

Seizing the Opportunity

The New Zealand Prime Minister, the Right Honourable Jacinda Ardern, in her speech to the United Nations (September ’21) spoke of New Zealander's shared values of kindness and connectedness, manaakitanga and whanaungatanga, and also a shared aspiration and unity toward a common goal, kotahitanga (Unity). 

The Prime Minister said in her meeting with the President of the United States (30.05.22) that ‘We are in an incredibly difficult International environment and domestically it is challenging as well’.  
 
 We are facing the difficult issue of overcoming the coronavirus and facing the prospect of coronavirus being an ongoing impact on our health, we are living with geopolitical maneuverings with a war in Ukraine causing horrific suffering on innocent lives, the war is creating massive food shortages in populations least capable of coping with the hardship and we have the major issue of containing global warming.
 
Capitalism through its evolution has undoubtedly been beneficial to living standards for the vast majority. Capitalism’s evolution, however, has also been subject to lobbying by vested interests to the point that we have vested financial interests in corporates that are now larger than national economies and it could be that that financial power is now influencing geopolitical maneuverings.
 
I can see that Karl Marx was correct in predicting that capitalism would create an increase in alienation. His comments were more in relation to increased industrialisation and the breakup of trades into divisions of labour, but there has also been an effect socially. Why is it that in an age of higher standards of living that we have such high levels of anti-depressant drug use, high levels of suicide and increase in anti-social activity amongst youths?


An important psychological need of people is the sense of belonging to, or being part of, a wider grouping. Quoting Yuval Harari from the book 'Sapiens' p.403 (published by Penguin 2011) 'Millions of years of evolution have designed us to live and think as community members. Within a mere two centuries we have become alienated individuals'. Although undoubtedly beneficial in raising living standards, capitalism, and other cultural changes, have undermined that sense of belonging and the high levels of antidepressant use and high levels of suicide are results of an increased feeling of alienation within society.
 
                         
Having worked in highly productive teams, and coincidentally very happy work teams, whilst travelling in the South Island in the sixties, and, having seen the corrosive adversarial battle between unions and government in Britain, I conceived the concept of a common bond for employees in Queenstown in the late sixties.  I have never given up on believing that this common bond framework in workplaces will be a win win for all stakeholders, for owners, for employees, for investors, for the community, for social well-being and for the economy.
 
Since the sixties my belief in the concept has been vindicated in several ways as follows:-
 
Firstly,
Daniel Pinks book ‘Drive’, [1] published in 2009 by Riverhead,
drew attention to the research findings on human motivation.
The research findings addressed human motivation and particularly the dynamics of extrinsic and intrinsic motivators.

Pink asserts that the robust research findings show that there’s a gap between what science knows and what business does. Our current business operating system which is built around external, carrot-and-stick motivators - doesn’t work and often does harm often giving high levels of employee disengagement detrimentally impacting on productivity. We need an upgrade. And the science shows the way.
 
Summarising research findings the new approach has three essential elements:
​
Autonomy – The desire to direct our own lives
Mastery     – Our urge to get better and better at something that matters.
Purpose    – Our yearning to do what we do in the service of something larger than ourselves.
 
The importance of ‘purpose’ as a motivator has proven itself repeatedly, and its power has changed the course of history. The significance and power of this latter research finding has not been fully grasped and utilised by economic and social policy makers in our modern times.
From Daniel Pink’s book ‘Drive’, the research shows that the secret to high perfor­mance isn't our biological (survival) drive or our seeking-reward-and-avoiding-punishment (carrot and stick) drive (which has been essential to economic progress around the world for the past two centuries), but our third drive - our deep-seated desire to direct our own lives, to extend and expand our abilities and to live a life of purpose, to have a purpose greater than ourselves.’
 
‘This is one of the most robust findings in social science – and also one of the most ignored.’
 
Secondly:-
We know from a reading of Yuval Harari's book 'Sapiens' (published by Penguin 2011) that established institutions are not necessarily functioning in the most advantageous way.  As Harari showed us, they are not based on an objective reality but rather they are myths that have been agreed upon as they evolved.
 
If we retain the potential for entrepreneurial activity and wealth creation, can we not also have a more inclusive model for business activity. A more people centric form of capitalism, a capitalism workplace framework that is inclusive, a framework of a common bond that all employees qualify for equally that will give higher productivity, improved social cohesion, engaged collaboration with managers, more employee loyalty, more hope and happiness and a potential step to a breakdown of inequality.  
 
Thirdly:
During this coronavirus crisis and the increasingly more urgent concerns of climate change I have detected a growing worldwide consensus of ‘Let us not go back to normal’ e.g.

https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2020/03/26/1098460/lets-never-return-to-normal         
 and calls for a more caring form of capitalism,
https://evolution-institute.org/evolving-a-more-nurturing-capitalism-a-new-powell-memo/
 https://medium.com/iipp-blog/capitalism-done-right-a-co-operative-system-to-solve-human-problems-25d2ca91e9a5

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/sep/16/we-must-use-the-covid-crisis-to-reshape-our-society-and-economy

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/covid-19-coronavirus-paul-conway-now-is-the-time-to-build-a-better-new-zealand-economy/GA3DURBLLSTRQDDZIT6LZYMFWE/

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/18/ending-climate-change-end-capitalism

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/26/opinion/us-capitalism-socialism.html?smid=em-share
 
 
Finally.
Nick Hanuaer is a supremely wealthy man, one of the wealthiest in the world, made possible through neo-liberal capitalism. He now speaks out with a strong indictment of neo-liberal capitalism and he calls for a new way                                                                                                                                                       
 
                          TED talk 'The Dirty Secrets of Capitalism - Search (bing.com)
 
                         (642) Nick Hanauer answers audience questions - BBC HARDtalk - YouTube
 
Examples of strong statements from Nick Hanauer ‘s TED talk are as follows:-
 
‘It isn’t capital that creates economic growth, it is people.’
‘It isn’t competition that produces our prosperity, it is co-operation.’
‘Raising wages doesn’t kill jobs, it creates them’.
‘It is the gospel of selfishness which forms the ideological cornerstone of neo-liberal economics.
‘This behavioural model that is at the cool heart of neo-liberal economics is just wrong’.
‘If we accept the latest empirical research, real science, which correctly describes human beings as highly co-operative, reciprocal and intuitively moral creatures, then it follows logically that it must be co-operation and not selfishness that is the cause of our prosperity, and it isn’t self-interest, but rather our inherent reciprocity, that is humanities economic super power’.   
‘Inclusion creates economic growth; the economy is people. Including more people in more ways is what causes economic growth in market economics.’
‘The new economics must and can insist that the purpose of the corporation is to improve the welfare of all stakeholders, customers, workers, community and shareholders alike’.
‘Greed is not good. Being rapacious doesn’t make you a capitalist, it makes you a sociopath’.
Neo-liberal economic theory has sold itself to you as unchangeable natural law, when in fact its social norms and constructed narratives are based on pseudo-science’.
If we want a more equitable, more prosperous, more sustainable economy, higher functioning democracies and civil society, we must have a new economics. If we want a new economics all we have to do is choose to have it.’  
 
Whilst Nick Hanauer is very clear on the need for a new way, he is not that forthcoming on how it can be achieved.
 
The above accumulation of viewpoints and research findings that are calling for change leads me to a conclusion that the time is right for a more inclusive form of capitalism.
 
A common need in human society across all cultures is the need to belong and be accepted by others. A sense of belonging is crucial to our life satisfaction, happiness, mental and physical health and even longevity. It gives us a sense of purpose and meaning. Research has shown that loss of belonging has been associated with stress, illness and decreased wellbeing and depression. Abraham Maslow ranked the need for belonging as the next level up after physiological needs (like food and sleep) and safety needs in his 'Hierarchy of Needs'.

We can take a lead from the Maori proverb ‘What is the most important thing in the world? ‘He tangata, he tangata, he tangata.’ It is the people. It is the people. It is the people.
 
A framework of a common bond for all employees within a workplace can create an inclusive culture even though the remuneration from this common bond framework is but a small proportion of an employee’s total remuneration. The concept is relatively simple but the power is in the intent
that management now sees employees in an employee partnership as distinct from shareholders or investor partnership, and the transparency of equal qualification for the common bond portion of remuneration will generate the synergetic engaged cooperative workplace culture that will ensure business success.
 
This framework creates a climate where employees are more involved in the workings of capitalism and the common bond of co-operation payments ensures that they act as a teamwork community and not as property brought together and used to earn a return on other people’s capital. What entrepreneur would not want all employees motivated for the success of their employing enterprise.
 
Non-profit making endeavours can utilise this framework by having criteria other than increased profit for measuring success e.g. meeting or surpassing budget goals, meeting or surpassing service goals, expanding the customer base, growing the business.

The concept has received encouraging comments in the past such as Sir Tipene O’Regan, when Chairman of Ngai Tahu, said 'Your concept has a clear fit with a Maori model' and Sir Paul Reeves, Governor General  'It is inappropriate that I comment on your concept but I urge you to persevere with what you are trying to achieve'.

Sometimes it can be that minor refinements can have wide reaching outcomes and especially when the innovation has universal application.

We have an opportunity in our recovery from the coronavirus and in the now more urgent issue of halting climate change to initiate a refinement to capitalism for progressive management businesses that will build on the valuable Maori proverb and those New Zealand values referred to by the Prime Minister.

In these critical times I am reminded of a quote from Albert Einstein ‘In the midst of every crisis, lies great opportunity’.


The initiative being proposed is a minor refinement to capitalism initially termed ‘Co-operative Capitalism’ (www.co-operativecapitalism.com) but potentially could be the ‘Kotahi Initiative’ or ‘Mahi Tahi Initiative’ or ‘Whakatu Initiative’ or simply 'Tima Capitalism' that gives us a more people centric capitalism, which will dovetail with the Maori he tangata, he tangata, he tangata.

There is a summarised description of the common bond concept in the previous Blog Post entitled ‘Reasserting our humanity through co-operation – an updated summary ‘ – August ’21 on  the website  www.co-operativecapitalism.com  ,

co-operative-capitalism-reasserting-our-humanity-through-co-operation-an-updated-summary.html
  
Progressive management teams embarking on a co-operative capitalism framework will acknowledge employee co-partnership in success in addition to investor co-partners in success and is a giant leap forward in industrial relations.

 The following details some of the potential benefits a business enterprise will realise: -

benefits-of-a-co-operative-workplace-culture.html
 
Critical Comments

Co-operative (tima capitalism) and the concept of a common bond for all employees has been criticised on two counts only:-

• That employees at the lowest remuneration levels will be receiving the benefit of co-operation payments disproportionally to their actual contribution to the company’s financial performance.

 Response
A reminder that co-operation payments are collective team payments and are not individual performance payments. 
There is an overriding caveat to the amount of co-operation payment an employee may receive - 'that the total amount cannot exceed 20% of total basic remuneration'.
In the case that a company is able to pay $4000 per co-operating unit following a successful year, an employee with a basic wage /salary of $40000 would have a 20% maximum cap of $8000 regardless of how many qualifying co-operating units he had accumulated. This framework gives incentives to employees to remain loyal employees, improve their skill levels and take on more responsibility, and thereby increase their base remuneration which in turn will give an increased benefit from co-operation payments. It is an encouragement to self-achieve which is a basic tenet of capitalism.  

• That the concept does not lend itself to public service employments and other non-profit making workplaces.

 
Capitalism has evolved through many refinements and that will be so with co-operative capitalism. When a goal is worthwhile achieving, we can determine to progressively bring those employees into the cooperative capitalism framework.  Public service employees can progressively become part a co-operative capitalism framework by the achievement of pre-determined budget goals, and ultimately receive a cooperation payment that is the average for profit making businesses. They will reciprocally be playing their part in a healthy society through the efficiency and productivity of public services. There will be more social cohesiveness, a natural permanent feature of healthy society.


This innovative initiative will naturally become a focal point for new attitudes. 

We are indeed privileged to be citizens of this paradise whenua, and New Zealand is superbly positioned to provide a lead with a transformative tima capitalism. 

​This surprisingly simple framework has no initiating cost, no running cost and no risk. The power is in the intent. The intent 'That employees are recognised as employee partners in business success and are not assets brought together to earn a dividend on external capital investment.' 

​A driving belief in this common bond concept is that people, when included with trust and respect, will respond positively, they will live up to expectations and very often respond beyond expectations.

It has always been my hope that it would be New Zealand that would lead the world with this evolutionary refinement in capitalism.

The companies that make the best use of their human capital will be the winners. 

To overcome mankind’s resistance to change we need enlightened, visionary leaders and bold, progressive politicians.

History shows us that any attempt to change the status quo becomes an interminably long struggle, regardless of how obvious the logic or the need for change. For example, many people were outspoken against slavery in the 1760’s, yet it was not until 1833 that the Abolishment of Slavery Act was passed in the British Parliament and in the end, it is Wilberforce and his parliamentary colleagues that history has credited with the achievement.
 
Any attempt to refine capitalism will, on that basis, not occur until long after I have passed but I have to express my conviction and I am sure that today’s teenagers will be grateful growing into a more inclusive co-operative culture. 
​
This relatively simple concept has universal application, a minor refinement to capitalism, initiated by Maori cultural values, that may have far greater outcomes than anticipated and may become known as ‘the NZ way’. 

The website was created in April 2016.  The following is an updated summary:-
 
Co-operative Capitalism - Reasserting our humanity through co-operation – an updated summary
  
The co-operative capitalism concept creates a common bond for all employees, the common bond being entitlement to a co-operation payment at the end of a successful financial year.  Co-operation payments are a second tier, not guaranteed, level of remuneration. Our first tier of remuneration is  our standard employment remuneration which is already in place for all employees. It is a prerequisite that an employee’s standard remuneration must be at a fair and equitable level.
 
Entitlement to co-operation payments is incremental up to a maximum of four qualifying units graduated on years of service but it is the same for ALL employees, including senior executives. The transparency of applying entitlements is conducive to create a team culture and trust in the framework and a talking point between all employees. The important differing aspect of co-operation payments is that they are not an individual performance bonus; it is a cooperative culture common bond - the cement that binds the co-operative team together.
 
It is proposed that in time a government will allow for annual co-operation payments to be recorded separately from PAYE on Tax returns and will be taxed at a fixed low tax rate for ALL employees, regardless of their current tax rate on PAYE. By taxing co-operation payments at a fixed low rate for ALL employees, the government will be encouraging teamwork and cooperative cultures in participating workplaces, and thereby dramatically improving productivity. This will not result in a reduction of tax revenue as there will be a phased introduction accompanied by increased productivity and profitability. The framework can be applied to any workplace of more than three employees and has a constraint that an employee’s co-operative payments can not exceed 20% of standard employee remuneration.
 
Progressive management teams embarking on a co-operative capitalism framework will see employees as employee co-partners in success as distinct from investor partners in success.
 
This framework creates a climate where employees are more involved in the workings of capitalism and the common bond of co-operation payments ensures that they act as a teamwork community and not as property brought together and used to earn a return on other people’s capital.
 
 Not only is a new form of capitalism more inclusive, but arising from more widespread adoption of the framework, the ensuing social cohesion will beneficially impact on health, happiness and hope and, in my opinion, more social cohesion would counter the detrimental alienating outcome of neo liberal capitalism, more social cohesion will also be beneficial in policy imperatives for combating climate change.
 
The co-operative capitalism concept has been supported in recent times by American research findings on human motivation as detailed in Daniel Pink’s book ‘Drive’ [1] published in 2009 by Riverhead.
 
Daniel Pink’s book ‘Drive’ [1] - an international bestseller, looks into the science of motivation and particularly the dynamics of extrinsic and intrinsic motivators.

Pink asserts that the robust research findings show that when it comes to motivation, there’s a gap between what science knows and what business does. Our current business operating system which is built around external, carrot-and-stick motivators - doesn’t work and often does harm often giving high levels of employee disengagement detrimentally impacting on productivity. We need an upgrade. And the science shows the way.
 
Summarising research findings the new approach has three essential elements:
​
Autonomy – The desire to direct our own lives
Mastery     – Our urge to get better and better at something that matters.
Purpose    – Our yearning to do what we do in the service of something larger than ourselves.
 
The importance of ‘purpose’ as a motivator has proven itself repeatedly, and its power has changed the course of history. The significance and power of this latter research finding has not been fully grasped and utilised by economic and social policy makers in our modern times. In contrast the push for deregulation and unfettered markets that drove the establishment of neo-liberal capitalism in the early nineties facilitated extremes of greed and self-serving, often resulting in the wanton disregard for the welfare of others. Whilst deregulation has been hugely beneficial to a minority, millions have suffered the consequences, particularly from the global financial crisis.

From Daniel Pink’s book Drive [1] 
‘The research shows that the secret to high perfor­mance isn't our biological (survival) drive or our seeking-reward-and-avoiding-punishment (carrot and stick) drive (which has been essential to economic progress around the world for the past two centuries), but our third drive - our deep-seated desire to direct our own lives, to extend and expand our abilities and to live a life of purpose, to have a purpose greater than ourselves.’
 
‘This is one of the most robust findings in social science – and also one of the most ignored. Despite the work of a few skilled and passionate popularisers – in particular, Alfie Kohn, whose prescient 1993 book “Punished by Rewards”, lays out a devastating indictment of extrinsic incentives – and yet we persist in trying to motivate people this way.’

Economic theory is traditionally based on the assumption that human behaviour could be explained largely by an inherent tendency to maximise self-interest, and yet we have evolved successfully by being collaborative and being part of something larger than ourselves is an even more effective motivator than self-interest.
 
Daniel Pink comments –
‘Motivational research findings are highlighting the mismatch between what science knows and what business does. Our basic nature is to be curious and self-directed i.e. autonomous. The opposite of autonomy is control. Control leads to compliance; autonomy leads to engagement. And this distinction leads to the second element – mastery, the desire to get better and better at something that matters. Autonomous people working toward mastery perform at very high levels. The most deeply motivated people, however, not to mention those who are most productive and satisfied, hitch their desires to a cause larger than themselves.’

With purpose as motivator productivity, worker engagement, and work satisfaction go up while personnel turnover goes down. The traditional rewards, using money as a motivator are not always as effective as we think. On the contrary, intrinsic motivators are much stronger and more efficient, and should be used as the foundation of how we run our businesses. 

‘The capitalist world is at an evolutionary turning point. Maybe the old carrot and stick approach can be replaced with a collaborative co-operative capitalism which still encourages entrepreneurs and wealth creation.’
Daniel Pink suggests that maybe we can reassert our humanity and change the world.
​
The ‘carrots and sticks’ model worked well in the era of industrialisation. Because human work in factories was easy to measure, it was easy to see how work policies changed productivity. Pay a person more per widget they make, and that person will crank out more widgets. These extrinsic (or external) rewards work for routine tasks.
 
But in the new information economy, this model is now outdated. The new economy requires thinking skills – creativity, collaboration, long term thinking. But research suggests extrinsic rewards harm all these qualities.
 

• Rewards decrease creativity and narrow focus
• Rewards encourage people to cheat, think short term, and exploit the incentive system
• Rewards decrease internal motivation to do a good job
• Rewards aren’t enduring – people get used to them, and if you take them away, they’ll stop the behaviour. 

The model of extrinsic rewards has led to current high levels of employee disengagement.
 
Comments on Capitalism.
Regardless of the origins of capitalism, it is a human construct that has been allowed to evolve to a point where the very benefits of capitalism in its infancy have now been eroded as detailed in the website Blog Post ‘Commentaries on the Failings of Capitalism’ dated 24th April 2019 (Co-operative capitalism Blog Posts), we are also seeing high levels of employee disengagement, high levels of social alienation (The sense of not feeling a part of a collective goal or hopeful social vision), increased inequality and more widespread stress and use of depression medication. Thomas Piketty’s book ‘Capitalism the Twenty First Century’ published following the World Financial Crisis 2008 questioned the myth at the very heart of American life – that capitalism improves the quality of life for everyone. This is just not so, says Piketty, and he makes his case in a clear and rigorous manner that debunks everything that capitalists believe about the ethical status of making money, he also argued that we may well find that the 21st century will be a century of greater inequality, and therefore greater social discord, than the 19th century. Piketty stated that current trends in capitalism are creating increases in inequality that are unsustainable.

Sometimes we can be so embroiled in how things are that it limits our vision to other possibilities.     This relatively small refinement to capitalism called ‘Co-operative Capitalism’ is far more inclusive for all employees and yet still retains free enterprise and wealth creation for entrepreneurs.

 What entrepreneur or investor would not want all employees working actively together for the success of their employing enterprise?
 
During the coronovirus crisis there has been a growing worldwide consensus along the lines of ‘Let’s not go back to normal’.
Examples :-
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2020/03/26/1098460/lets-never-return-to-normal      and,

https://world-news-monitor.com/climate/2020/03/27/greener-more-equal-economy-must-emerge-after-impact-of-coronavirus-experts-say/     and calls for a more caring form of capitalism

https://evolution-institute.org/evolving-a-more-nurturing-capitalism-a-new-powell-memo/
​
https://medium.com/iipp-blog/capitalism-done-right-a-co-operative-system-to-solve-human-problems-25d2ca91e9a5

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/sep/16/we-must-use-the-covid-crisis-to-reshape-our-society-and-economy

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/covid-19-coronavirus-paul-conway-now-is-the-time-to-build-a-better-new-zealand-economy/GA3DURBLLSTRQDDZIT6LZYMFWE/

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/18/ending-climate-change-end-capitalism

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/26/opinion/us-capitalism-socialism.html?smid=em-share
 
These sentiments from around the world in response to the coronovirus crisis when coupled with the following quote from Albert Einstein,  ‘In the midst of every crisis, lies great opportunity’, leads me to suggest that these times give us the opportunity for an evolutionary step in capitalism. An evolutionary step that retains the benefits of capitalism i.e. free enterprise and wealth creation, but is more inclusive, encouraging more employee engagement in workplaces, and as the concept becomes more widespread bringing about more social cohesion.     
 
The co-operative capitalism common bond concept just makes darned good sense from every angle whether it be economically, socially and politically. The company wins, management becomes easier, employees win and investors win.

There may, however, be a detracting opinion from top company executives no longer finding it easy to give themselves outrageously inflated bonuses.
 
History shows us that any attempt to change the status quo becomes an interminably long struggle, regardless of how obvious the logic or the need for change. For example, many people were outspoken against slavery in the 1760’s, yet it was not until 1833 that the Abolishment of Slavery Act was passed in the British Parliament and in the end it is Wilberforce and his parliamentary colleagues that history has credited with the achievement.
 
Any attempt to refine capitalism will, on that basis, take aeons and will not occur until long after I have passed but, nevertheless, I have to express my conviction and the sound logic of this concept. 
 
The website details the potential benefits of the co-operative capitalism framework :-
http://www.co-operativecapitalism.com/blog-posts/benefits-of-a-co-operative-workplace-culture
 
In addition to improved productivity,  profitability and social cohesion there are other advantages from this framework.  A Finance Minister will have a mechanism of encouraging co-operation by reducing the co-operation payment tax level whilst incrementally increasing PAYE tax if fiscally prudent to do so. The framework may also be utilised to encourage a collective effort against climate change. Any co-operative capitalism business that reduces its carbon footprint during a financial year can earn an additional tax reduction on the employee’s co-operation payments.  
 
The presentation of the web site is persuasive toward business by predicting improved productivity and profitability, the wider more important goals however, are social.
 
I can see that Karl Marx was correct in predicting that capitalism would create an increase in alienation. His comments were more in relation to increased industrialisation and the breakup of trades into divisions of labour but there has also been an effect socially. Why is it that in an age of higher standards of living that we have such high levels of anti-depressant drug use and high levels of suicide?
 
A quote from George Bernard Shaw is very apt  "Some people see the world as it is and ask 'Why?'. Others see the world as it could be and ask 'Why not?'. ''
 
There is the possibility of a very simple no cost framework with no downside, but masses of potential upside both economically and socially.
 
In the initial years of business there may not be sufficient profit to allocate an amount to the co-operation payment level for employees, but employees will be accruing co-operation qualifying units through their employment years of service and therefore will benefit in profitable years.
 
The significant research “Profit Sharing and Profitability” – (subtitled – How Profit Sharing Promotes Success) Messrs Bell and Hanson concluded that a co-operation culture within a workplace can improve profit by up to 40% and improved investor returns of 78%.
 
Following successful years, a Board of Directors have an additional consideration when deciding on the allocation of profits, i.e. when considering the amount to distribute for each co-operation qualifying unit, they must at least maintain the ongoing synergetic contribution of all employees.
 
This framework creates a climate where employees are more involved in the workings of capitalism and the common bond of co-operative capitalism ensures that they act as a teamwork community not as property brought together and used to earn a return on other people’s capital.
 
Maybe in the future there are progressive management teams that would adopt this framework and the more traditional management teams continue as they are, but I foresee that the most capable employees will choose to be employed with progressive management teams. The companies that make the best use of their human capital will be the most successful companies.
 
Daniel Pink’s book ‘Drive’ was published in 2009. He suggested that maybe we can reassert our humanity and change the world, it was a response to the research findings on human motivation and that the findings could rejuvenate business. Mankind has now had to contend with the spread of the coronavirus worldwide and furthermore the latest IPCC report on climate change has highlighted a more urgent crisis affecting all life’s support systems. We have far more reasons now to be reasserting our humanity. The co-operative capitalism framework has universal application and is a minor refinement to capitalism that will create more social cohesiveness.

There have only been two criticisms of the concept, both have been addressed in the prior blog         Co-operative capitalism Blog Posts which suggested spreading the load of combatting climate change amongst people everywhere. Is it possible, that if promoted well, that a minor evolutionary step in capitalism could be one way of uniting people in combatting climate change?

There will be those who label this concept ‘socialist’ and others that see a smart capitalism.
What entrepreneur would not want all employees motivated for the success of the business? 
Companies that learn how to make the most of their human capital are likely to be the winners.​
 
References
 
[1] Daniel Pink ‘Drive’ published by Riverhead Hardcover 2009
 

This blogpost examines whether the Co-operative Capitalism framework and the common bond concept (www.co-operativecapitalism.com) can be utilised to share the load of tackling global warming amongst employees everywhere.
 
Capitalist businesses and corporations are dominant in the world’s economy and their operating with shareholder obligations is a paradigm that does not lend itself to a shared overarching goal for mankind to protect this planet for our future generations. An expectation that corporates and shareholders shoulder the financial burden of what is needed to halt global warming is very unlikely to meet the required time frames. The most effective way of halting climate change is to make it a shared responsibility for mankind by sharing the load with employees everywhere. The co-operative capitalism framework which has universal application is a means of achieving that whilst retaining the essential capitalist tenet of free enterprise. This co-operative capitalism concept arises from a belief that capitalism is due an evolutionary step, and that mankind must reassert it’s humanity.
 
Assessing Progress in Halting Climate Change
 
The first UN Climate Change Conference was held in 1995 in Berlin. Conferences have been held annually since then under the framework of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC). They serve as the formal meeting of the UNFCCC Parties (Conference of the Parties -COP) to assess progress in dealing with climate change and beginning in the mid-1990s, to negotiate the Kyoto Protocol to establish legally binding obligations for developed countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. The 25th UNFCC was held in Madrid in December 2019. Alden Meyer director of strategy and policy for the Union of Concerned Scientists who has attended climate negotiations since 1991 stated that he had never seen before the almost total disconnect between what the science requires and what the climate negotiations are delivering in terms of meaningful action.
 
The 21st Climate Change Conference in Paris in 2015, through the collaboration of 196 diverse countries, reached a landmark admirable agreement to combat climate change and to accelerate and intensify the actions and investments needed for a sustainable low carbon future. The Paris Agreement builds upon the UNFCC and – for the first time – brings all nations into a common cause to undertake ambitious efforts to combat climate change and adapt to its effects, with enhanced support to assist developing countries to do so. As such, it charts a new course in the global climate effort.
 
The Paris Agreement’s central aim is to strengthen the global response to the threat of climate change by keeping a global temperature rise this century well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase even further to 1.5 degrees Celsius.
 
The World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland January,  2020 presented two reports. The first report ’The Net-Zero Challenge: Global Climate Action at a Crossroads’ included assessments of progress made since the landmark Paris accord of 2015 as follows:-
 ‘In the four years since the historic meeting and 24 years after the first Conference of the Parties (COP) in 1995 progress on climate action has been limited at best. Global greenhouse gas emissions continued to increase by 1.5% per year in the past decade, with no signs of peaking. A reduction of approximately 5% per annum is needed to limit global warming to 1.5°C.
 
Government commitments so far are far from sufficient. Only 67 countries – among them none of the top five emitters – have committed to the goal of achieving net-zero carbon dioxide emissions. And even most countries with this commitment have not enacted sufficiently robust policies to attain the emission reductions required.’
 
Despite commitments from individual governments and companies this past decade, emissions have risen by 1.5% per year. Should this trajectory continue, the world is projected to warm by 3°C to 5°C by 2100, with catastrophic effects on human civilization.
 
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), limiting global warming to 1.5°C requires net human caused carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions to fall by 45% by 2030 and to reach net zero by 2050. Other GHG emissions must also dramatically decrease.
 
The report graphically shows current CO2 emission trajectories and the required  trajectories across all business sectors to attain net zero CO2 by 2050, highlighting how divergent the trends are and showing that progress since the Paris accord is alarmingly short of what is necessary.
 
The future of capitalism was a hot topic at the Annual Meeting this year, with a variety of opinions and positions taken by Davos participants.
 
Chancellor Angela Merkel told the audience at her special address
 
“‘The whole way that we do business, that we live and that we have grown accustomed to in the industrial age, will have to be changed. We will have to leave that behind us in the next 30 years and we have to come to completely new value chains."
 
Marc Benioff at the 'Stakeholder Capitalism: What is required from Corporate Leadership?’ session.
 
"Capitalism as we have known it is dead. This obsession we have with maximising profits for shareholders alone has lead to incredible inequality and a planetary emergency."
 
Feike Sijbesma at the same session.
 
"Maybe somewhere we derailed a little bit, where we thought making money is the real goal of the economy, where the real goal is to live happily here all together."
 
Professor Klaus Schwab in his op-ed ahead of the meeting: Why we need the Davos Manifesto for a better kind of Capitalism.
 
"Business leaders now have an incredible opportunity. By giving stakeholder capitalism concrete meaning, they can move beyond their legal obligations and uphold their duty to society. They can bring the world closer to achieving shared goals, such as those outlined in the Paris climate agreement and the United Nations Sustainable Development Agenda. If they really want to leave their mark on the world, there is no alternative."
 
HRH The Prince of Wales in his keynote speech
 
 "Global warming, climate change and the devastating loss of biodiversity are the greatest threats humanity has ever faced." 

HRH The Prince of Wales appealed for a new business model stating that the current model is no longer fit for purpose citing : -
Increased Income inequality
Environmental degradation
Loss of Species at unprecedented rates
Severe stress on food systems and water
Massive deforestation
Collective impact of irreversible climate change
 
Prince Charles concluded by asking the audience: "do we want to go down in history as the people who did nothing to bring the world back from the brink in time to restore the balance when we could have done?"
 
"We simply cannot waste anymore time ... the time to act is now."
 
The second report presented at the World Economic Forum   ’The Net-Zero Challenge: Fast Forward to Decisive Climate Action’ demonstrated that action is not only imperative but also possible as follows:-
 
If unchecked warming continues, the consequences for human civilization will be severe. Rising sea levels could encroach on coastal regions and could flood major regions and metropolitan areas before the end of this century. Extended heat waves could threaten food security for a growing world population, while longer droughts could put access to drinking water at risk. Extreme weather events and changes to current ecosystems could produce millions of “climate refugees” and cause a deterioration in global development and economic growth. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the per-capita impact of “no action” on global GDP has been estimated at minus 30% as of 2100 – in other words, it would reduce global GDP per capita by 30% (vs minus 8% for 1.5°C of warming).
 
Ours is the last generation that can prevent global disaster – and the need for action is immediate, and this report has demonstrated that action is possible. Multilateral policy coordination would be the best solution for halting the climate crisis.
 
Progress on climate action to date has been limited. On the government side, while 121 countries have now committed to be carbon neutral by 2050, they account for less than 25% remissions. None of these countries are among the top five emitters, and few, in spite of the commitment, have enacted policies that are robust enough to produce the desired effects. On the corporate side, only a minority of companies fully disclose their emissions.
 
In light of this global inertia, public pressure and global activism has surged in recent years, especially among the youth and in Western countries. However, public education on the threat of climate change and related climate action is still insufficient to make this a global phenomenon.
 
The transition to a net zero economy will be a transformational shift for all of society. Individuals have to take the lead in inciting governments, businesses and every part of society to move. The world is at a crossroads. We must fast-forward to decisive and cohesive action.
 
But with the slow pace of international climate negotiations to date and the complex political context , the reality is that a global consensus will probably not be established soon enough to counter the crisis. It therefore falls upon this generation of business, government and society leaders to accelerate action individually and through collaboration to develop new business models that contribute to achieving a low-carbon economy.
 
Governments can unilaterally enact national regulation to reduce emissions immediately. In parallel a push for action on the world stage is needed. Climate change is a global problem that ultimately demands a unified, global solution.
 
If unchecked warming continues, the consequences for human civilisation will be severe. The later humanity takes action, the more dire our position will become.
 
The future of capitalism was questioned at the World Economic Forum and several keynote speakers called for new business models. HRH Prince Charles stated that the current business model was no longer fit for purpose.
 
History of Capitalism
 
The processes by which capitalism emerged, evolved, and spread are the subject of extensive research and debate among historians.  Key parameters of debate include: how far capitalism is a natural human behaviour and how far it arises from specific historical circumstances; whether its origins lie in towns and trade or in rural property relations; the role of class conflict; the role of the state; the extent to which capitalism is a distinctively European innovation; its relationship with European imperialism; whether technological change is a driver or merely an epiphenomenon of capitalism; and whether or not it is the most beneficial way to organise human societies.
 
Viewpoints on capitalism cover the polarised extremes of economic liberalism and socialism.  The trickle down theory of the neo-liberalist economists of the past four decades has been discredited.
 
Regardless of the origins of capitalism it is a human construct that has been allowed to evolve to a point  where the very benefits of capitalism in its infancy  have now been eroded as detailed in the blog post  commentaries-on-capitalism.html ‘Commentaries on the Failings of Capitalism’ dated 24th April 2019 (http://www.co-operativecapitalism.com/blog-posts).  Along with the failings detailed in the above blog post, we are also seeing high levels of employee disengagement, high levels of social alienation (that sense of not being a part of a collective goal or hopeful vision) , increased inequality and more widespread stress and use of depression medication. Thomas  Piketty’s book ‘Capital in the Twenty-First Century’  published following the WFC  questioned the myth at the very heart of American life – that capitalism improves the quality of life for everyone. This is just not so, says Piketty, and he makes his case in a clear and rigorous manner that debunks everything that capitalists believe about the ethical status of making money, he also argued that we may well find that the 21st century will be a century of greater inequality, and therefore greater social discord, than the 19th century. Piketty stated that current trends in capitalism are creating increases in inequality that are unsustainable.
 
There is alarmingly slow progress by politicians and corporates on the imperative of halting a global warming that will make life unsurvivable for millions. Considering the severity of the irreversible outcome of global warming it would be a madness by intelligent man to allow an unsurvivable outcome for millions of lives on this, our miracle planet home.
 
All things considered is it not timely to consider a new beginning for capitalism?
 
Desperate times call for bold action and there exists an inclusive concept that can be applied universally. An inclusive concept that does retain free enterprise and wealth creation.
The website www.co-operativecapitalism.com was created in April 2016. The website has maintained prominence for four years on internet search engines throughout the world on the key words ‘co-operative capitalism’.
 
The author surmises that the web sites prominence on search engines is indicative of a widespread interest in potential alternatives or refinements to capitalism following the world financial crisis of 2008,  two decades of neo-liberal capitalism and increasing inequality.
 
There are predictions now of over a million species being lost and an inability to feed the worlds population resulting in the loss of billions of lives because of climate change. Our intelligence cannot allow such a scenario to occur. If we need a shared overarching goal throughout the world for mankind to protect the planet then capitalism must be refined to become inclusive and co-operative.
 
The website www.co-operativecapitalism.com has given us an inclusive co-operative framework that is practical, that retains free enterprise and can be applied universally giving us a worldwide movement that enables a responsibility of employees everywhere in combating climate change.
 
With high level political support a global movement for co-operative capitalism becomes an attainable very timely goal.
 
Co-operative capitalism is not the new economic system that Prince Charles appealed for at the
World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.  This is one small refinement for Capitalism but a giant step forward for mankind  for social cohesiveness, productivity, profitability, engagement , providing a brake on rising inequality and reasserting our humanity. The concept builds on the  research findings of human motivation (Daniel Pink 'Drive') and the significant human motivation of being part of something larger than  ourselves, whether it be the success of the employees  employing enterprise or being a part of mankind’s shared responsibility of combatting global warming worldwide.
 
 The concept is relatively simple and can be applied universally. The introduction
 of a co-operative capitalism framework in workplaces throughout the world will restore mankind’s
 humanity, rekindle hope and yet still retain free enterprise and wealth creation for entrepreneurs.
 
Co-operative capitalism is not socialism it is smart capitalism.
 
A worldwide movement to Co-operative Capitalism initiated in New Zealand is seen as the most
effective way of creating a shared responsibility within workplaces generally whilst retaining free
enterprise. It also gives us a framework that eases the transitioning of businesses to more
sustainable operations as the business is now operating with a co-operative culture that has the
employees onside for the success of the enterprise and also with the goal of halting global warming.   
 
A natural consequence of a fresh concept is that it becomes a focal point for new thinking.
Admittedly this is a grandiose viewpoint  but a fresh concept can increase hope and enthusiasm for improving lives around the world and for employees everywhere to be onside with whatever
actions are needed.
 
There were calls at the World Economic Forum for new business models and something called Stakeholder Capitalism but political leaders and policy makers appear to be stuck in an impasse on exactly how these were to be achieved in the timeframe necessary. An impasse, by its nature, blocks progress and frustrates hope.

The website www.co-operativecapitalism.com details the financial and social benefits for the concept, the research findings on human motivation (Daniel Pink 'Drive'), and also contains many of the details for establishing and operating the framework.
 
Critical Comments

Co-operative capitalism  and the concept of a common bond for all employees has been criticised on two counts only:-

• That employees at the lowest remuneration levels will be receiving the benefit of the concept disproportionally to their actual contribution to the company’s financial performance.

 Response
All employees qualify for Co-operating Units (maximum of 4) equally and the end of year payment amount for each co-operating unit is the same for all employees. There is an overriding caveat to the amount of co-operation payment an employee may receive - 'that the total amount cannot exceed 20% of total basic remuneration'.
In the case that a company is able to pay $4000 per co-operating unit following a successful year, an employee with a basic wage /salary of $40000 would have a 20% maximum cap of $8000 regardless of how many qualifying co-operating units he had accumulated. This  framework gives incentives to employees to improve their skill levels and take on more responsibility, and thereby increase their base remuneration and a subsequent increased benefit from co-operation payments. An encouragement to self achieve and improve their well being which is a basic  tenet of capitalism.  

• That the concept does not lend itself to public service employments and other non-profit making workplaces.

 
When a goal is worthwhile achieving we can determine to progressively bring those employees into the cooperative capitalism framework. Capitalism has evolved through many refinements and that will be so with co-operative capitalism. Public service employees can ultimately receive a cooperation payment that is the average for profit making businesses. They will then reciprocally be playing their part in a healthy society through their efficiency  and productivity. There will be more social cohesiveness, a natural permanent feature of healthy society.
 
Sir David Attenborough has left us in no doubt that a million species will be lost forever and that this is a critical moment in time, the decisions we make now will influence the future of animals, humanity and indeed all life on earth.
 
When we have the science of mankind’s most effective motivating factors and also the science of climate change it makes sense to utilise the positive findings in the former to tackle difficult issues of the latter. At this stage of an impending crisis of global warming making this miracle planet home unliveable, intelligent man must not double deny. If we are determined we can achieve.
 
I call on the Honourable Grant Robertson, Minister of Finance to investigate amendments to New Zealand’s remuneration tax framework to allow for co-operation payments recorded separately on tax returns at a reduced tax rate than normal PAYE rates. Progressive management companies will reap the benefits of the co-operative culture within the workplace as described in the www.co-operative capitalism 'in-depth proposal'

http://www.co-operativecapitalism.com/blog-posts/benefits-of-a-co-operative-workplace-culture
 
The  United Nations can initiate a worldwide move to co-operative capitalism by promoting the concept and follow New Zealand’s lead. 

Postcript - 6th April '20

Throughout the above Blog Post the payments arising from an enterprise co-operative culture have been referred to as 'co-operating payments'. Considering this current massive impact on our economy of combatting the effects of the coronovirus, and in anticipation of an emerging recovery phase, the payments could be referred to as 'Recovery Payments' for the first five years and then revert to the label co-operating payments. The phraseology 'recovery payments' will gird New Zealand employees to the task of re-establishing a strong economy and ease that aspiration for the Minister of Finance. 

 We cannot deny the benefits of pre millennium capitalism. Free market capitalism has created developments that have been enormously beneficial to the living standards of mankind. That entrepreneurs are more creative, inventive, industrious, tenacious, risk averse or more philanthropic has benefitted living standards in countless ways.                                                       

                                                            Faults in Capitalism

The following is extracted from an article by Sheldon Slabbert in the Newsroom, New Zealand web page, 8th March ’19.

  Loss of Competition

 Jonathan Tepper  in his new book The Myth of Capitalism  masterfully lays out the argument that it is the lack of competition as a prime reason for capitalism’s faults.  It’s a failure to adhere to that core tenet of capitalism that is to blame for capitalism’s current failures. 

Since the 1980s we have seen an ever-increasing consolidation of economic power and wealth in corporate America, with most sectors now dominated by only a few players. Consider Google with almost 90 percent market share of internet search activity outside of China.

The top tech companies in America now have a market capitalisation that exceeds the combined GDP of all the countries in Western Europe - yet many of these organisations are still being allowed to acquire companies and drive out competition, further consolidating their stranglehold over the sector and consumer. Startups have little chance.

Consolidation in banking has brought us companies that are “too big to fail” and we see similar examples across airlines, the pharmaceuticals industry and others - corporate concentration comes in different forms.

New Zealand and Australia have a significant problem with oligopolies and duopolies that weigh on the economies of their citizens. Most will be familiar with a monopoly or duopoly, but not too many will be able to recognise the insidious dangers of oligopolies - where a small number of players have carved up a sector for themselves. Oligopolies create the illusion of competition, and often pass regulatory scrutiny under the promise of increased efficiencies and lower cost to the consumer, which is not sustained. 

In New Zealand, oligopolies and duopolies are clear and present across our grocery stores, and power, telecommunications and banking sectors. It is further very evident in the building materials space, contributing to the growing cost of housing. 

Companies like Fletcher have long enjoyed a stranglehold over the domestic building materials and distribution business. The extent of their reach to try to keep competition at bay, was on display recently with Knauf’s (the German plasterboard manufacturer) epic struggle to get their product to market in New Zealand.

Taking a broader look, one could also deduce to a certain degree that many of New Zealand’s top stocks are able to pay healthy dividends to shareholders because of their dominant positions. They have less need to reinvest profits into continuous research and development and remunerate staff well to compete for talent, as the existence or threat of real competition is much lower here than in other more competitive markets. 

Horizontal shareholding

Concentration of power and wealth is further achieved through horizontal shareholding. The Harvard Law Review cited recently that in the US the odds that two competitors have a common shareholder with more than 5 percent shareholding in each company rose from 16 percent in 1999 to 90 percent in 2014. 

In other words, there is a 90 percent likelihood that any two random competitors will share a common major shareholder whose profits will suffer if the firms compete with each other for market share.  
We can all drive change through our day-to-day spending, striving to bring back the benefits of true capitalism by being more aware of the negative effect that monopolistic behaviour has on our economy and society.  

Coinciding with this dramatic rise in horizontal shareholding, executive compensation has become increasingly based on market performance since the 1990s, where business leaders are incentivised for ensuring sector growth, rather than on direct competition with their peers.
 
Why wages are stagnant
The increased concentration of controlling companies within different industries has led to a number of companies achieving monopsony power as the only buyers of labour. This has left workers with little choice in where they work, and little negotiating power in terms of wages, meaning that over recent years employee benefits have largely been eroded away. Stagnant wages have also prevented many from being able to invest in stocks.
 
The level of inequality between CEO pay and that of the average worker has never been this extreme - and perhaps, we should also be discussing this pay gap issue.  

Further dangers of monopolistic corporate behavior
A loss of competition results in fewer startups, lower wages, higher inequality, less innovation and lower investment. Concentration of economic power also increases corporate lobbying power and political influence – where these organisations are often able to influence new legislation or deregulation of an industry that further insulates their interests. Some see the two-party system as a duopoly in itself. 

Milton Friedman is quoted as saying: “Economic freedom is an essential requisite for political freedom” - and competition is a critical element of capitalism because it promotes the diffusion of power and political freedom.

What can we do? 
Most monopolies do not come to be through natural economic forces within capitalism, but are generally a product of political decisions that can be reversed. Most of the legislation already exists and simply needs to be applied more readily - anti-trust regulations in particular.  
We are now seeing increased calls for regulation, such as with the tech darlings known as the FAANG stocks - the five largest listed firms globally which have (to date) grown with little regulation. This may see digital monopolies like Facebook and Google broken up or with other restrictions imposed upon their current business models.

Paul Tudor Jones has been pioneering a voluntary reform of corporate culture in the US. His company, 'Just Capital' polls the American public in order to evaluate and rank companies on those issues they deem most important - ranging from how they treat workers, the environment, leadership, and product quality to name a few.
 
He has shown through his Just Capital Index that companies can thrive while doing social and economic good by aligning themselves with a more conscientious consumer and employee. While investors are able to buy shares in the individual companies, Just Capital has launched an exchange-traded fund where investors can buy the basket of shares of these companies more efficiently. These funds can be accessed under their trading codes “JULCD and JUST”. We can all drive change through our day-to-day spending, striving to bring back the benefits of true capitalism by being more aware of the negative effect that monopolistic behaviour has on our economy and society.  
 
                                           Developments Undermining  Capitalism
 
Bo Rothstein an internationally acclaimed Swedish political scientist who holds the August Röhss Chair in Political Science at University of Gothenburg, Sweden  gave this commentary on the documentary Can We Do It Ourselves:-
 
‘Today’s capitalism is very different to how it used to be back in the day. Back then there were hard working individuals who owned the capital, had the skills, the initiative and the abilities, and who also helped to run the business. Today for example, more than 80% of the Swedish stock exchange is owned by investment funds, pension funds and so on. They lack the interest, ability or control of production and they do not really care. No doubt there are similar statistics on other share markets.’

‘There is a difference between how capitalism is marketed and how capitalism actually works. It is marketed with these models … the idea of the free market, the choosing consumer and the idea that the consumer is ultimately in charge. In reality, however, many corporations strive for monopoly. Many corporations want exclusive power over the market and will do whatever it takes to get that power. Today corporations try to manipulate governments to enforce particular rules that suit certain interests, and thus invest heavily in persuasive lobbying. Advertisement is another way and also buying up competing companies taking them out of the market. The free market can be a means for certain capitalists to take over the market in order to abolish the free market because they want monopoly power.’

‘Businesses work really hard not to have competition and free markets. The really big money is to be made in markets that are not free, that are not competitive. This is the single idea that we really have to understand. Free markets and competition are really good things but businesses will move heaven and earth not to have to operate in such environments.’

‘Power becomes the dominating principle not efficiency, not social well-being, not environmental concern for our planet, and not life fulfilment for individuals.’
 
‘Like the aristocratic ownership of huge tracts of land, which in 1791 Tom Paine attacked in his book ‘The Rights Of Man’, these productive assets remain effectively in the hands of a very few, very rich people, and make our claims to real democracy look pretty thin. In Tom Paine’s lifetime the capitalist system was in its infancy. As an advocate of equality and democracy, he focused his attack on the landed aristocracy, the nobility, the monarchy, and on their ownership of huge swathes of land. He seems to have assumed that the market system, then involving mainly small traders and craftsmen, would remain small-scale, fairly egalitarian, and so compatible with democracy. Had he foreseen how the development of huge multinational corporations would surpass the concentrations of wealth and undemocratic power of his day, he would surely have included them in his sights. The classical figure John Stuart Mill, a leader of classical liberalism, took it for granted that the workplace would be under the control of the people that worked there. Go back further to Adam Smith (or David Hulme), they argued that a fundamental feature of human nature is sympathy for others. He also took for granted along with other classical liberals that a society should be designed so that it provides the most extensive possible support for the fulfilment of individual capacities. The creation of opportunities for people to live their creative and fulfilling lives, and so on, and I think if you trended it – if you go beyond what they were talking about and asked what sort of society they envisaged. I think it is quite consistent with the conclusion that Mill drew explicitly – a kind of economic democracy’.  

Human beings are a social species that relies on cooperation to survive and thrive. Understanding how and why cooperation succeeds or fails is integral to solving the many global challenges we face.
Cooperation lies at the heart of human lives and society — from day-to-day interactions to some of our greatest endeavours. Understanding cooperation — what motivates it, how it develops, how it happens and when it fails to happen — is therefore an important part of understanding all kinds of human behaviour. In this focus issue of Nature Human Behaviour, we bring together review, opinion and research content on human cooperation from across the journal’s scope — including evolution, anthropology, ecology, economics, neuroscience and environmental science — to spark interdisciplinary conversation and perhaps even inspire some scientific cooperation. In our dedicated collection on cooperation (https://www.nature.com/collections/gvmywthghh), we combine new commissioned content with work from our archive that exemplifies the breadth of enquiry in this important interdisciplinary field.
Klaus Vedfelt/DigitalVision/Getty
Why do we cooperate at all, when choosing the selfish option may seem like the most logical and rewarding in a competitive world? A Review by Hilbe et al. discusses the recent formal theoretical work on partnership versus rivalry in social dilemmas and argues that rivalry tends to develop in smaller populations with limited numbers of interactions, while more frequent interactions encourage cooperation to emerge as an evolutionarily stable strategy. Modelling work by Jagau and van Veelen1 we published last year also found evidence for multiple stable states of cooperation, showing, in contrast to previous work, how flexible, deliberative strategies can evolve. Of course, many other species have made a success out of cooperation, and a Comment by Brosnan makes the case for a comparative economics approach to uncover cooperation’s evolutionary path.
We can also interrogate the mechanisms and motives behind cooperation by observing how it happens in practice. In a Review, Fehr and Schurtenberger evaluate the experimental literature for evidence of a fixed social norm of conditional cooperation supported by peer punishment, which, they argue, can account for multiple recurring patterns of human behaviour seen in cooperative contexts. In future, we may gain an even more precise understanding of individual motives in these types of cooperative experiments, by directly observing neural responses during game play, as argued in a Comment by Declerck and colleagues.
Successful cooperation requires not only cooperative choices, but also a way to signal your intent and good qualities to potential partners. A Perspective by Bliege-Bird and colleagues examines the subtle signalling that people deploy to solidify their long-term cooperative relationships, using the practice of sharing catches after lizard hunts among Martu hunter-gatherer women as a case study. The most successful hunters share out, subtly, the meat with all, strengthening their reciprocal bonds and distributing the burden of resource scarcity risks. This chimes with a Comment by Aktipis et al., who suggest that the evolutionary concept of ‘fitness interdependence’ between individuals for survival and reproduction could be adopted as a framework across disciplines to understand why cooperation is so integral to our lifeways.
“Even in difficult situations, the desire for cooperation would appear to often be nascent and the evidence suggests that we are naturals at it, given the opportunity.”
The Martu example is a system of trust and shared risk that speaks to some of the most pressing issues that humans face today globally, that is, the sharing of risk and the ‘trust’ needed to take collective action. In a previous issue, Koomen and Herrmann2 showed that children as young as six years old can spontaneously find ways to collaborate to maintain a shared, limited resource. And indeed, a 2017 review of the literature by McAuliffe et al.3 provided ample evidence that children acquire notions of fairness from a surprisingly early age. However, we know all too well from observing the real world that coordination among adults often fails. Gächter et al.4 provided partial insight into why this might be, showing that adult participants contribute more when establishing a new collective good, but contribute much less to maintain an existing resource. Muthukrishna et al.5 showed that typical anti-corruption strategies may have negative impacts on cooperation, depending on the cultural context. These findings are a caution that the levers we apply to encourage cooperation should be tailored to context.
How can we nurture cooperation for the common good? In experiments run by Grossmann et al.6, the authors found that they could induce participants to engage in ‘wise reasoning’ to avert making automatic, selfish decisions. In a Comment, Dannenberg and Barrett note that cooperation often fails when individuals are uncertain about the relative importance of their own effect on a critical, environmental threshold, and argue, through successful examples, such as the Montreal Protocol, that institutions must make cooperation the more attractive option. In a similar vein, Castilla-Rho et al.7 presented a model that identifies the ‘tipping points’ at which groundwater conservation becomes a widely accepted social norm across diverse cultural settings, which can be used by conservation managers to predict the most effective interventions.
Finally, some of the seemingly most intractable cooperation problems in the world today are the conflicts between rival nations and different political, religious or ethnic groups. However, Fotouhi et al. show that a strong barrier to cooperation is simple lack of communication and suggest that promoting even sparse interconnections between previously segregated societies can support the evolution of cooperation globally. Even in difficult situations, the desire for cooperation would appear to often be nascent and the evidence suggests that we are naturals at it, given the opportunity.
Some powerful theories and empirical insights have expanded our knowledge of cooperation over the past few decades — but much remains to be understood. Integrating questions and approaches from different fields may provide fertile ground to achieve this. We look forward to publishing theoretical and empirical research on cooperation in the future that will push the boundaries of the field even further.
References

1. 1.Jagau, S. & van Veelen, M. Nat. Hum. Behav. 1, 0152 (2017).
   
   
   

• • • Article
    • Google Scholar
• 2.Koomen, R. & Herrmann, E. Nat. Hum. Behav. 2, 348–355 (2018).
  
  
  
• • • Article
    • Google Scholar
• 3.McAuliffe, K., Blake, P. R., Steinbeis, N. & Warneken, F. Nat. Hum. Behav. 1, 0042 (2017).
  
  
  
• • • Article
    • Google Scholar
• 4.Gächter, S., Kölle, F. & Quercia, S. Nat. Hum. Behav. 1, 650–656 (2017).
  
  
  
• • • Article
    • PubMed
    • PubMed Central
    • Google Scholar
• 5.Muthukrishna, M., Francois, P., Pourahmadi, S. & Henrich, J. Nat. Hum. Behav. 1, 0138 (2017).
  
  
  
• • • Article
    • Google Scholar
• 6.Grossmann, I., Brienza, J. P. & Bobocel, D. R. Nat. Hum. Behav. 1, 0061 (2017).
  
  
  
• • • Article
    • Google Scholar
• 7.Castilla-Rho, J. C., Rojas, R., Andersen, M. S., Holley, C. & Mariethoz, G. Nat. Hum. Behav. 1, 640–649 (2017).
  
  
  

1. • • Article
     • Google Scholar

Download references
Rights and permissionsTo obtain permission to re-use content from this article visit RightsLink.
About this articlePublication historyPublished09 July 2018
DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0389-1
Share this articleAnyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:


Subjects

• Anthropology
• Economics
• Environmental sciences
• Human behaviour
• Neuroscience
• Social evolution

Article ToolsDownload PDF 0 Citations
31 Altmetric

Article metrics

Air New Zealand has announced earnings before taxation for the 2018 financial year of $540 million, an increase from the prior year result of $527 million, representing the second highest profit in the airline's history.
Net profit after taxation grew 2.1 percent to $390 million.
Staff bonuses of up to $1800 will be paid to all permanent employees who do not participate in a short-term incentive programme.
Chairman Tony Carter praised the strength of the result, which demonstrates the airline's resiliency.
"This is an impressive financial result, driven by strong revenue growth across the airline's key markets, as well as continued focus on sustainable cost improvement, despite significantly higher fuel prices.''
About 8500 staff will be paid the bonus.
The airline has battled with disruption to its network over the last year caused by the Marsden Point fuel pipeline rupture, severe storms affecting its domestic operation and international flights and some of its Dreamliners pulled from service at times for repairs.
Rolls-Royce Trent Package C engines used by the airline on many of its Boeing 787s need more checks and in some cases lengthy repairs to turbine and compressor blades. Other aircraft have been used to fill in on routes as there are now limits on how far Dreamliners still subject to extra checks can fly from airports.
Air New Zealand has used charter planes from Portugal's Hi Fly and a Boeing lease operation.
A Bloomberg poll of five analysts forecast a pre-tax profit of between $543m and $571m with an average figure of $553m.

Submission to the NZ Tax Working Group                                                                            April '18
Co-operative Capitalism
 
The New Zealand developed concept ‘Co-operative Capitalism’ merges the benefits of capitalism, free enterprise and wealth creation, with the productivity and social benefits existing in co-operative culture enterprises.
 
The concept draws on motivational research findings, socially beneficial frameworks and the practical experience of New Zealand companies.
 
The supporting motivational and social research findings are detailed in the ‘In Depth Proposal document’ of the website www.co-operativecapitalism.com . 
 
The above website was created in April  2016, and has percolated from internet search engine obscurity to be the first returned search item on ‘co-operative capitalism’ on all (excluding Yahoo) the popular internet search engines for the past 9 months. Curiously a surprisingly high number of internet sessions from Russia (yandex.ru) amongst sessions from over 40 countries during this time.

Air New Zealand Company
In 2001 the possibility of Singapore Airlines taking a 49% shareholding in Air New Zealand was avoided by the actions of  the NZ Labour Party to rescue our national airline from bankruptcy.

Having successfully navigated the first year (2001) following the impending bankruptcy the Board, under the Chairmanship of John Palmer, decided to give all staff a bonus of $500. We do not know if this was a suggestion of the then Minister of Labour, Margaret Wilson, or whether it was an initiative of the Board. Regardless, and to the Board and senior managements credit, it has been the forerunner of possibly nine occasions when the Air New Zealand company has given an equitable distribution of bonus to all employees not currently on an incentive scheme. Last year those employees received $1700.

No one can doubt the simply outstanding performance of Air New Zealand, from our own small domestic market, against tough international competition, since those times of imminent bankruptcy.
It would be revealing to measure the financial and social benefit of the co-operative culture that has become a feature of the company’s operations. It is very interesting to note that the Board and executives of the Auckland Airport company is now also giving an equitable distribution of bonus to all employees.

Politicians have told us that there is no possibility of tax cuts before 2020. This co-operative capitalism concept proposes a 15% tax rate on the equitable distribution of bonus for all employees. It is suggested that this be called a Kotahi Payment  - Kotahi meaning ‘co-operating together as one’ in Maori.

This fixed 15% tax rate will be on the equitable distribution of bonus for ALL employees, RECORDED SEPARATELY from PAYE on tax returns, and is part of a vision for an inclusive co-operative New Zealand.

This tax innovation, facilitating a co-operative workplace culture, is constructive rather than punitive.
The government has been the recipient of healthy growing dividends from their shareholding in Air New Zealand, and therefore, why not encourage that management style in other businesses.

No better way to encourage that management style than to cater for a fixed low tax rate (regardless of employees current PAYE rate) on the annual equitable bonus for ALL employees on Kotahi payments.  (Mahi Tahi payments, Team NZ payments, Co-operating payments - whatever they are to be called).

Kotahi payments (for ALL employees) are not individual performance bonuses; they are a co-operative culture common bond – the cement that binds the co-operative team together.

Performance related remuneration will be reflected in an employee’s contracted or baseline remuneration, although exceptional specific bonuses, e.g. sales, may coexist along with Kotahi payments.

Following Air New Zealand's management lead a NZ government can be the first to implement the low tax innovation and thereby be the catalyst for the growth of co-operative capitalism.

A co-operative culture will see a giant stride forward in workplace productivity and profitability. - management wins, employees win, investors win and government wins.

I have reflected on why I have attempted to promote a tax innovation that provides a framework encouraging a co-operative culture in workplaces? The website www.co-operativecapitalism.com includes guidelines on implementation but  also outlines the numerous social and productivity benefits.  Additionally when I first arrived in New Zealand in the sixties, the social fabric of the country had more of an egalitarian quality and that was reflected in the character and spirits of New Zealanders.

This egalitarian quality, much admired – even envied – by other countries, has been eroded as a result of successive government policies over the last 30 years.

Government support for a tax innovation encouraging Kotahi payments, will play a part in redressing that loss of a national, inclusive social and economic aspiration.

As a national framework for progressive management teams, Kotahi Payments have the double attribute of improving both workplace productivity and social cohesion and are an opportunity to recover a valuable part of our heritage. All this at no risk to the tax revenue or business profit.

I believe that improved social cohesion will have an indirect positive effect on individual’s health and ultimately, in a small way, maybe even the national health budget.

A background observation when formulating this simple concept is that New Zealanders have shown that they equal, if not surpass, any nation when they are part of a ‘teamwork’ approach or collective effort.

This characteristic is demonstrated in sporting endeavours, in hosting international events, in producing opening ceremonies, in national charity appeals and in community endeavours. Furthermore some of New Zealand’s more significant industries do have a co-operative basis. Therefore why not build on this national trait in our workplaces?

Arranging for this simple innovation as part of the national remuneration tax framework needs enlightened politicians willing to break out from traditional capitalist thinking and encourage co-operative culture workplaces.

Progressive management teams taking advantage of this option will realise both the productivity and social benefits.

As the Kotahi payment concept becomes part of ‘the New Zealand way’ we will see a more robust growing economy and improved social cohesion.

Just as the Auckland Airport Company is now adopting the lead of Air New Zealand with its own  equitable distribution of bonus, so this concept will spread to other businesses. The most capable employees will hitch their careers with the co-operative capitalism enterprises, as they predictably will be the more successful companies.

In recent years there have been reports from the O.E.C.D. and NZ Productivity Commission, speeches from politicians, and media articles from economic commentators, all highlighting the comparatively low productivity of the New Zealand economy with that of our trading partners. examples as follows :-
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/87247256/Bill-English-laments-low-productivity-urges-NZ-to-focus-on-human-capital
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11130048

This is also associated with high levels of disengagement of employees within workplaces. New Zealand's productivity track record has been and is poor, but this has been masked by strong population growth.

The Kotahi payment concept will lift our productivity and will, in the long run, see a reduction in anti social behaviour along with a drop in demands on our mental health services.

It would be kudos for New Zealand to become a lead nation for co-operative capitalism and, as has happened before, have an influence beyond our borders.

Far preferable that New Zealand is first off the rank to become more productive, more competitive and more socially cohesive than other countries such as Russia or India.

This concept puts faith in New Zealanders who after all are New Zealand’s greatest asset.

This is an example of the marketplace providing innovation by two prominent NZ  Corporates, but will the government step up to provide forward leadership rather than be backward accommodating? At the very least it can create the framework as an option for progressive managements and let businesses decide on its applicability.

Our country has outstanding natural beauty with widely diverse landscapes. For our small population we punch above our weight in many endeavours.

If a relatively small airline from a small consumer base can outperform airlines from large economies then we, as a country, can follow their progressive management style and lift our productivity, improve social cohesion and be a lead example with influence beyond our borders.

To create this framework as an option for progressive managements is not a major rewrite of our remuneration tax system. It is a refinement with potential outcomes beyond quantifying.

The level of widespread internet interest in this concept implies that there is an appetite internationally for alternatives or refinements to the extent of neoliberal capitalisms evolution.

As Daniel Pink quoted in ‘Drive’ ‘It is an opportunity to reassert our humanity’.

Regards,
Alan Harding                                                                                          [email protected]

George Monbiot is a regular contributor to The Guardian in the UK and is highly critical of the outcomes from  neoliberalism as detailed in this article 'The ideology at the root of our problems'

The proponents of neoliberalism have contended that competitive individualistic profit maximising behaviour was a good thing, that we have dominant characteristics of selfishness and greed, and that stimulates enterprise, which produces wealth, which will somehow trickle down to enrich everyone.

George Monbiot gave a wonderful  refreshing response when being interviewed on his latest book ‘Out Of The Wreckage’ .
 
He was given this question and his answer follows:-

• Implicit and explicit in your book is the contention that people are by nature altruistic and communal. Given the current triumph of the rugged individualism narratives in most developed and extracting nations, what evidence underlies your contention that we inherently are part of a belonging society?

 
Over the past 20 years or so, there has been a remarkable convergence of findings in neuroscience, psychology, anthropology and evolutionary biology. They all point to the fact that humankind, as this paper from 'Frontiers in Psychology' puts it, is “spectacularly unusual when compared to other animals” in our degree of altruism. There’s a list of references to scientific papers on this subject in Out of the Wreckage.

We also have an astonishing capacity for empathy, and a tendency towards cooperation that is rivalled among mammals only by the naked mole rat. These tendencies are innate. We evolved in the African savannahs: a world of fangs and claws and horns and tusks. We survived despite being weaker and slower than both our potential predators and most of our prey. We did so through developing, to an extraordinary degree, a capacity for mutual aid. As it was essential to our survival, this urge to cooperate was hard-wired into our brains through natural selection.

But the great tragedy we confront is that this extraordinary good nature has been hidden from us. Partly by our own perceptions. We have an inherent tendency to look out for danger. The violent and destructive behaviour of the few is more salient in our minds than the altruistic and cooperative behaviour of the many.

Of course, in any nation, there are people who do not share the general tendency towards altruism and empathy. We call them psychopaths, and they comprise about 1% of the population. Unfortunately they are disproportionately represented at the top levels of government and business. The current US president (President Trump) is a good example. We see them, and the way they behave, and tell ourselves that this is what human beings are like. It is not. It is what 1% of human beings are like.

But the other reason for this tragedy of misperception is that we are immersed in a virulent ideology of extreme individualism and competition, which tells us, against all the scientific evidence, that our dominant characteristics are selfishness and greed, and that this is a good thing, as it stimulates enterprise, which produces wealth, which will somehow trickle down to enrich everyone. This is the central ideology of neoliberalism, which valorises and centralises our worst tendencies, and celebrates the inequality and domination that results. One of our principal tasks is to replace this false story with what the science tells us about who we really are. We do not need to change human nature. We need to reveal it.
 

During the recent New Zealand General Election free market capitalism was described as a blatant failure and now viewed by far too many New Zealanders … not as their friend, but as their foe.

A more considered commentary on Free Market Capitalism was given by Andrew Callander, Taranaki Daily News 8th November ‘17

https://www.stuff.co.nz/taranaki-daily-news/news/98681669/free-market-capitalism--friend-or-foe-for-society  

                                      Benefits of a Co-operative Culture
 

• Development of a more positive view of the employer by employees reflected in engaged co-operative attitudes and improved productivity.

 

• Reduction in the need for supervisory staff primarily employed to make sure that work is done

 

• Reduction in staff turnover and therefore a reduction in hiring, general procedures and staff training overhead

 

• Employees in their work will feel an increased responsibility to their work colleagues

 

• Decisions taken either by groups or individually will have more regard to the cost benefit for the enterprise

 

• Attitudes will arise that will foster engagement, creativity and enthusiasm within the enterprise

 

• More positive ideas from employees on how the operation can be improved

 

• Enterprises that have adopted the co-operative capitalism initiative will attract and retain highly motivated employees who see a positive creative work environment as more fulfilling and a necessary work benefit
• Less pilfering of company property or stock

 

• Employees drawing attention to potential production problems before they eventuate

 

• Reduction of the abuse of company property, vehicles, facilities etc

 

• Employees will be generally more inclined to promote their employing enterprise

 

• A willingness by employees to put in the extra time in situations where it will be of benefit to the company (meeting delivery deadlines etc)

 

• A reduction in absenteeism and sick days (as it is suspected that many sick days arise from a negative work attitude)

 

• A team approach amongst employees may see a reduction in accident rates

 

• A reduction in non-work-related activity

 

• Elimination of unnecessary work

 

• Reduction in  ‘call backs’ and replacements

 

• Shareholders are now investing in a company where the whole workforce is investing in themselves

 

• Employees can manage a crisis a lot better because of their flexibility.

 

• Management is accountable to the other employees - it will be far more challenging and satisfying to manage engaged synergetic colleagues than keeping a disengaged workforce compliant.   

 

• The business will be quicker on its feet to adapt to new markets and changing trends and also in adapting to new imperatives e.g. global warming.

 

• An enlightened government can support the co-operative capitalism initiative by allowing the lower tax rate on ‘co-operating (team) payments’ which are recorded separately from PAYE on tax returns. They can also encourage the move to co-operative culture enterprises by allowing for a marginally lower company tax for those enterprises that had registered to be co-operative capitalism companies.

 

• Additionally there is the potential refinement of allowing a slightly lower ‘co-operating (team) payment’ tax rate for any enterprise that could demonstrate a reduction in their carbon footprint during the year, thereby raising the awareness of a need for a collective effort to combat global warming.

 

• Genuine interest by employees in being informed on how well the business is performing (an in-house talking point).

 

• Reaffirm New Zealand’s reputation as a politically and socially innovative country.

 

• The success of their employing enterprise will be satisfying the significant human motivator – our yearning to be part of something larger than ourselves but, wider still, is the knowledge of contributing to an era of co-operation for mankind.

 

• There is no wider sense of purpose than playing our part in halting global warming and protecting this paradise miracle planet for future generations.
  

 

• More socially enjoyable yet productive work environments


• The framework allows for a reduction in the tax on co-operation payments, thereby encouraging more co-operation, whilst incrementally increasing standard PAYE tax rates if deemed fiscally necessary to do so.

 

• It is very ironic that negative attitudes in a work situation can be more energy draining than getting in with a positive attitude and doing a reasonable day’s work. The worker who has spent the day disengaged, avoiding work, trying not to be seen, being deceptive, being uncooperative, finishes the day feeling less satisfied and with less energy than the person with a positive attitude who has done a reasonable day’s work. The former attitude is not doing the individual any good  - nor the company’s production or profitability.

All of the above savings will go straight to the bottom line of increased performance, and research findings are showing that for profit making enterprises average increases of 40% in profit can be anticipated. Mondragon co-operatives are TWICE as profitable as comparable Spanish firms and have the highest labour productivity in the country.

Non-profit making enterprises can operate within this framework by employees achieving pre-determined performance goals.

Productivity improves, enterprise success occurs, individual pride, satisfaction and motivation increases. The social environment is more inclusive, individuals feel less alienated, and improved social cohesion will have an indirect positive effect on individual’s health and ultimately, in a small way, maybe even the national health budget.

A Harvard Business Review article (December '16) Professors Alex Bryson and Richard Freeman.hbr.org/2016/12/profit-sharing-boosts-employee-productivity-and-satisfaction