Optimizing the impact of Canada’s Small Business Financing Program
Canada is currently undergoing the biggest wave of business succession in the country’s history. At the same time, Canada is facing a sharp decline in business formation and entrepreneurship. Without intervention, these twin trends are poised to weaken the vibrancy of Canada’s economy and damage local economies for the indefinite future.
Social Capital Partners and Venture for Canada made a joint submission to Innovation, Science, and Economic Development Canada (ISED) as part of its work to finalize its mandated 5-year review of the Canadian Small Business Financing Program (CSBFP).
We recommend that the CSBFP should be amended to allow for increased Entrepreneurship through Acquisition (ETA). ETA is a model whereby existing or aspiring entrepreneurs purchase and grow existing small businesses, rather than build them from scratch. This approach plays an important role in facilitating a transition to a new generation of entrepreneurs, keeping wealth in Canadian communities and unleashing local, private sector innovation.
At the corner of Main Street and Purpose: Rethinking small businesses by rethinking who owns them
By Shane Gibson | This post first appeared in Future of Good.
The Canadian economy is nudging towards a major transition, and a large number of small business owners are approaching retirement. Selling to a bigger business or corporation is one option, but alternative ownership models are giving business owners attractive options to keep their operations local.
Whether converting to a non-profit, forming an Employee Ownership Trust (EOT), or transitioning to a co-operative, alternative ownership not only helps local businesses but can also protect local jobs and keep wealth in the community.
“It’s all about people. It’s all about having control,” explained Dave Walsh, managing director of the Newfoundland & Labrador Federation of Co-operatives (NLFC).
Walsh is talking about co-operatives – an alternative ownership model that allows community members to take control of small businesses and keep them local.
The NLFC is currently part of an initiative working to help small businesses in rural Newfoundland transition to the co-operative method.
The project, called Social Enterprise Through Acquisition, is run with help from the Community Sector Council Newfoundland and Labrador and made possible by a $750,000 investment from the Northpine Foundation.
Walsh said the co-operative model can work well for businesses facing transition.

“Imagine you have a business owner who’s about to retire. They have a couple of traditional options: they can shut down, or they can sell,” Walsh noted, adding typically, that sale might be to a larger company.
He said that, for example, the local hardware store might be bought out by Rona or Home Depot, or a small cafe might sell to Starbucks.
But instead of selling to a corporation, under the co-operative model, the community comes together to take ownership of the business. Walsh said this can be a combination of employees and even customers.
“Basically, they form a small board and run the business through a committee,” he explains. “This way the business stays open and a community doesn’t lose a necessary service.”
While moving to a co-op can be especially effective for organizations with distributed management models, EOTs and non-profit conversions might be a better option for organizations with more traditional management structures.
Changes to Canadian law this year have made employee ownership more enticing for SMEs by exempting the first $10 million in gains from the sale of a business to an EOT.
The EOT model – which sees a trust hold shares of a corporation for the benefit of the corporation’s employees – has given Friesens Corporation in Manitoba the chance to prioritize employees’ values ahead of profit, according to CEO Chad Friesen.
Under the Friesens model, both part-time and full-time employees are beneficiaries of the employee trust, meaning they receive cheques—similar to a dividend payment—several times a year.
“Yes, it feels awesome to hand out cheques,” Friesen said, proudly bestowing the virtues of employee ownership. “But ultimately, you want people to be a part of the whole story, and I have pride telling people how this company started, how we’re owned, and how that benefits the lives of the people who work here.”
Meanwhile, choosing to convert to a non-profit can see the SME itself remain for-profit while a non-profit takes over ownership.
“By being owned by a non-profit, its profits can be redirected into the non-profit to support programming, etc.,” explained Kristi Fairholm Mader with Thrive Impact Fund, a place-based fund in B.C. providing acquisition financing and working capital to social enterprises.
“It is also a good way to diversify revenue, provide inclusive employment, support local economies, and increase sustainable supply chains.
Through the transition to alternative ownership, a business broadens its social purpose, meaning it can serve an important social role in a community—that it makes the community better, according to Walsh.
“Every co-operative started because there was a need, because there was an important gap that someone needed to fill,” he said. “Those are powerful stories – like when you talk about a community that had no daycare, and everyone got together to fill that need.”
Walsh said he thinks those types of stories are about to become more common.
In 2022 a Canadian research project, Co-op Convert, found Canada is set to lose up to 48 per cent of its local businesses in the next five years – mostly due to retirement.
In Atlantic Canada, that number is estimated to be closer to 55 per cent for small- to medium-sized businesses.
Colin Corcoran, CEO of the Community Sector Council Newfoundland and Labrador, said that makes projects like Social Enterprise Through Acquisition even more critical.
“Our goal is to provide a lifeline for communities facing economic uncertainty by safeguarding employment through the conversion of local businesses,” said Corcoran.
Even though Social Enterprise Through Acquisition is a relatively new initiative in Newfoundland (the project was announced in 2023), co-ops are far from a new idea.
In fact, they have a long history in Canada, dating back to the 1860s.
Grocery stores, banks, newspapers, childcare, insurance companies, restaurants, housing and more have all been run as co-ops at one point or another.
According to Employee Ownership Canada (EOC), employee ownership can also boost productivity, job satisfaction, engagement, and motivation among employees. So why don’t we see more alternative ownership models like co-ops in our communities now?
Walsh thinks it’s all about education.
“We don’t learn about co-ops in school anymore,” he said. “You could go through an entire business degree and not talk about co-ops.”
Walsh admits the idea can sound foreign and complicated, and he’s worried some will be deterred from trying it. But he’s hoping his initiative—and others across the country, such as a new employee ownership campaign by EOC—will help educate and change some minds.
“Yes, there is more work than with a traditional business, but it’s worth it,” he said about his experience with co-operative models. “The community is so much more involved. It’s so powerful.”
And he’s not just talking about Newfoundland. Walsh said there’s a big space for co-ops in Canada, and a rich history to back it up.
“Just look at Quebec. They’re leaders in co-ops – in the financial and even the housing sector,” he said. “The Prairies have been leading the way in co-operative business for over a hundred years with grocery stores and credit unions.”
Back in his neck of the woods, Walsh points to the Fogo Island Co-Operative Society as a gold standard in the co-op world.
The co-operative has been going strong on the island, the largest of Newfoundland and Labrador’s offshore islands for more than 50 years.
It was started in 1967 as island residents faced a slowing economy and a dwindling population.
They had a difficult choice: leave their homes and resettle on the mainland or stay and rebuild together.
They chose to rebuild, and since then, the “Fogo Process” – a model for building a co-operative society – has become known worldwide.
Walsh said it’s a testament to what a co-operative future in Canada could look like.
“They were destined for resettlement. Now Fogo Co-op is delivering seafood products all across the globe,” he said. “They’re even one of the biggest fisheries in Canada… and they’re a co-op.”
For more information on co-operatives across Canada, check out Co-op Week 2024 from Oct. 13-19, hosted online by https://canada.coop/en/events/co-op-week-2024/.
Matthew Mendelsohn
Team
M@st3rSCP
Name Here
Matthew is a Canadian public policy leader. For over 25 years, he has designed and implemented public policy solutions that work in practice and has advised governments, organizations and elected leaders on ways to improve economic, social and democratic outcomes. Matthew is a former deputy minister with the governments of Canada and Ontario, and was the founding Director of the Mowat Centre, a public policy think tank at the University of Toronto. Most recently he was a Visiting Professor at Toronto Metropolitan University and a Senior Advisor at Boston Consulting Group. Matthew received a B.A. from McGill University, a Ph.D. from the l’Université de Montréal and an ICD.D from the Rotman School of Management.

Uncommons Podcast: Wealth inequality and inclusive growth with Matthew Mendelsohn
Social Capital Partners’ CEO, Matthew Mendelsohn, joins Member of Parliament for Beaches-East York, Nate Erksin-Smith, on his podcase “Uncommons”. Matthew and Nate talk about wealth concentration and its threat to democratic stability. They also discuss practical solutions to address wealth inequality, lack of trust in democratic institutions, the role of the federal public service and the need for a competent and responsive government.
Speakers
Nate Erksine-Smith
Member of Parliament, Beaches-East York
Matthew Mendelsohn
CEO, Social Capital Partners
Employee Ownership Trusts make it easier for Canadian businesses to share wealth with employees
This post first appeared in Future of Good.
Two new federal bills have received royal assent, making it easier for business owners to create Employee Ownership Trusts and share their wealth with employees.
New incentives will encourage business owners looking to sell to consider an Employee Ownership Trust so employees can have a stake in business ownership.
Selling the company to a trust means employees do not pay out-of-pocket. The loan is paid off from company profits, and employees begin to receive dividends.
Nearly three-quarters of small business owners plan to retire in the next decade.
Advocates have long argued that EOTs have numerous benefits. They allow companies to grow and stay in local communities, contribute to employee retention, and create financial wealth for employees and their families.
Bills C-59 and C-69, which will allow this to happen, received royal assent on June 20.
Bill C-59, a competition bill, means Canadian business owners will qualify for up to $10 million in tax-free capital gains if they sell 51% or more of their company to workers through an EOT.
Bill C-69 is a financial fairness bill which aims to encourage more business owners to sell to an EOT.

“It’s a different wealth-building model, but it lifts everybody and creates good economic opportunities,” Arnold Strub, executive director of Employee Ownership Canada, said earlier this year. “When employees have skin in the game and an ownership mindset, good things start to happen.”
The Government of Canada first read Bill C-59 in the House of Commons, including proposals on Employee Ownership Trusts (EOT), on Nov. 30.
Highlights include extending the capital gains reserve from five to 10 years, a $10-million capital gains exemption, and the ability to use the loan as a tax deduction, all designed to make turning a business into an EOT easier, said Strub.
Broadly, employee ownership meets two crucial goals, said Strub. First, it’s a democratic way for working-class Canadians to acquire wealth.
Such models are also a retention tool, as employees generally have better compensation and develop an ownership mindset.
“There’s a lot of research from the UK and the U.S. that shows that private companies with some type of employee ownership plan do better,” said Strub.
One employee ownership success story can be found in the Canadian prairie town of Altona, Man. where Friesens Corporation has 600 employee-owners in a town of 4,300 people. Established in 1907, the company evolved into four divisions offering trade books, academic annuals, packaging and self-publishing assistance.
In the 1950s, the owners began investigating new ownership models once they knew no next generation would take over. Influenced by the co-operative movement, they started gifting shares to employees who, for a time, could exchange them on a private market. About 30 per cent of the staff owned all of the shares.
That worked until the early aughts when Friesens created an EOT since more people were retiring than purchasing shares.
Now, every employee is an owner, and every employee is a beneficiary.
“Over the last 12 months, we’ve distributed in the neighbourhood of $5.5 million in proceeds to our employee-owners,” CEO Chad Friesen said in January.
“On average, our employee-owners received over $10,000 of what we would call an EOT distribution.
“We feel that our model is the great equalizer in business. It doesn’t matter whether you’ve come from an affluent family down the road or you’re a newcomer who’s arrived here from the Philippines. You both have an equal opportunity within this company to take advantage of ownership benefits.”
The Canadian Employee Ownership Coalition came together 18 months ago to advocate for better incentives to boost employee ownership in Canada.
Mark Carney and the Canadian business elite need to think more about growing wealth inequality that is destabilizing democracies around the world
By Matthew Mendelsohn | The Toronto Star
Mark Carney had a chance to weigh in one of the defining issues facing Canada. The answer he gave suggests he isn’t ready for public life
Mark Carney made a speech last week and many people had plenty to say about it. But one of his replies during the Q & A deserves more attention than it received.
MP Nate Erskine-Smith asked Carney what he would do about Canada’s growing wealth inequality. Carney’s answer was a bit unfocused, but he made two points clearly: 1) Let’s hope wealthy people give more to charity, and 2) We shouldn’t only focus on redistribution.
This was not a serious answer.
If Carney wants to play a constructive role in Canadian public life, he should have thought deeply about the staggering and growing wealth concentration in Canada and around the world. This concentration is creating anxiety and anger among many young people, it is destabilizing democratic societies and he should have something meaningful to say about it.
Given his professional history, Carney knows that the benefits from economic growth in recent decades have increasingly gone to capital rather than workers. Even if he doesn’t want to serve up big pieces of blame pie, he should at least have critical reflections on the role of finance in producing obscene wealth alongside real hardship.
Unfortunately, Carney’s instincts on wealth inequality are reflective of what has been on full display from many business leaders over the past few weeks who have been bemoaning Canada’s “productivity emergency” — and then having a bit of a fit about small changes in the capital gains tax.
We share these concerns about the long-term decline in productivity, which has real and negative consequences on our quality of life.
But Canada’s long-standing productivity challenges have been debated for three decades, their causes are not well-understood and the solutions are not obvious. We certainly shouldn’t assume that realistic solution just happen to coincidentally lineup with all the prior positions and economic interests of corporate Canada.
“Given his professional history, (Mark) Carney knows that the benefits from economic growth in recent decades have increasingly gone to capital rather than workers,” writes Matthew Mendelsohn. “Even if he doesn’t want to serve up big pieces of blame pie, he should at least have critical reflections on the role of finance in producing obscene wealth alongside real hardship.”
We are even more concerned that many of Canada’s industry leaders who shape our public debate have seemingly missed the most important economic policy debates of the past 20 years. Around the world, almost no serious person continues to believe that cutting taxes on the wealthy will unlock growth for working and middle-income people.
Most advanced industrial democracies are dealing with inequality and challenges to economic growth by rejecting market fundamentalism and investing in things like public transit, child care, affordable housing and ensuring that low- and middle-income people have money to spend in the local economy.
So, Carney’s answer was disappointing.
When he was asked about wealth inequality, Carney could have talked about his views on this emerging consensus. He could have talked about housing and its relationship to both inequality and productivity.
He could have shared his thoughts about global processes to confront wealth sheltering and corporate profit shifting.
He could have talked about how oligopolistic markets hurt working people, innovation and productivity and how we should break them up.
He could have discussed ways to get more capital into underserved communities or how we should confront the worst features of modern extractive capitalism and private equity.
And when he chose to toss the word “redistribution” on the table, he could have at least noted that we are living through a period when concentration of ownership is redistributing upwards toward the extremely wealthy. Or that it is important that we stop talking narrowly about income redistribution and focus more deeply on how to broaden ownership of the economy.
But his instinct was to say none of these things, just as the instinct of our business community when talking of productivity is to discuss their taxes rather than the housing crisis.
Authoritarian populists are winning in many places because, in part, the benefits of economic growth have been accruing disproportionately to capital. Everyone who aspires to play a constructive role in public life needs to address this head on.
Highly unequal societies — with wealth, opportunity and privilege passed along intergenerationally — are not safe, healthy or happy societies. They are not in anyone’s interest, even the wealthy.
Employee ownership trusts: What they mean for Canadian business owners
By Jon Shell
Employee Ownership Trusts (EOTs) are coming to Canada! This note is intended to give business owners and their advisors a simple (albeit not short) explanation about what they are, and why they should care. I’m not a lawyer or an accountant, so I’ll try to use language that I understand (and that may in some cases not be technically perfect). So, don’t take this as legal advice, but as someone trying to explain this in a way I think I would understand.
A quick point up-front: EOTs are intended for succession — a way to sell a majority of a business to a company’s employees. They don’t help with selling a minority stake in the company — there are other approaches for that, like stock option plans and share purchase programs. So, unless you’re looking to sell your business, the EOT likely isn’t for you.
However, if you are considering selling your business in the next few years, you should be aware of the EOT. Employee ownership has a long track record of being good for employees, companies and communities, and as a result the UK and US provide significant tax incentives for business owners who sell to the workers. Canada is now following suit, exempting the first $10M of capital gains from income tax for sales to EOTs. This exemption is only available until the end of 2026, so there’s good reason to look seriously at the option.
“Employee ownership has a long track record of being good for employees, companies and communities, and as a result, the U.K. and U.S. provide significant tax incentives for business owners who sell to their workers.”
EOT-like structures are quite popular in other countries, and tax incentives are only part of the story. I’ll get into more detail about the legacy and resiliency benefits later, but here are a few stories featuring owners who have sold to their employees through this structure in the US and UK: Taylor Guitars (US), Emsworth Yacht Harbour (UK) and Craggs Energy (UK). In the US about 250 companies a year are sold to their version of the EOT, and in the UK over 300 companies have sold to their version in each of the last two years.
If you’re looking for more technical detail, I’ve added links at the end, including to the government’s own EOT explainer. If you scroll down and say to yourself “man, this is too long” feel free to skip to the end and click on one of those other links instead.
If you’re still with me, you likely have dozens of questions, so I’ll try to anticipate some of them in a Q&A format here.
Employee ownership trusts FAQs
By Jon Shell
Why do we need this trust? Can’t I just sell my company to my employees if I want?
Yes, you can! But you’re probably not going to. There are very few companies in Canada where employees hold a majority stake. The new EOT is designed to solve the two biggest barriers to these sales: funding the transaction, and decision-making after you sell.
The first question that normally comes up when talking about employee ownership is: how are my employees going to come up with the money?
The answer, in the case of EOTs, is they don’t have to. Like the structures in the US and the UK, the purchase is funded by future company cash flow. In the simplest case, a business owner will transfer their shares to the EOT in exchange for fair market value. Instead of getting paid up front, the company agrees to pay the purchase price to the business owner over time.
For example, let’s take a company that produces $1,000,000 in after-tax cash every year, and the fair market value is $4,000,000. If the owner sells 100% of the company to the EOT, it will take four years to pay the owner back. At that point, the EOT will own the company debt-free on behalf of its employees. This is obviously a very simple example, but hopefully illustrates the point.¹ A business owner could also approach a bank to lend some of the money to pay for the shares, so they get some cash up front. For example, it’s common in the US for a bank to lend up to 50% of the transaction to the company to fund the purchase, meaning in this case the owner would get $2,000,000 up front, and an additional $2,000,000 over time, once the bank is paid off. (In this UK example, HSBC participated in the financing of a company sale to an EOT).
A trust helps by holding the shares on behalf of employees, and committing to pay the owner the purchase price over time. For a bunch of tax reasons we won’t get into here, the trusts that were available in Canada prior to the EOT don’t work well for this kind of transaction. In contrast, the EOT has been designed for this express purpose.
The trust owning the shares is also helpful for the second common barrier to selling to employees: decision making. How does it work once I sell? Do all the employees get to vote on every decision after the sale?
If you sell to an EOT, they do not. The reason why these trust models have been so popular in the US and the UK is they allow for companies to be managed the same way they’ve always been, and help with a seamless transition. EOTs are often referred to as “indirect ownership” because employees benefit from the financial success of the company without owning the shares directly. The EOT will have a Trustee Board, who will make a limited set of decisions on behalf of the employees, and the company will have a Board and a management team that will make the decisions required to run the company.
For example, if you’ve been running your businesses with a traditional structure for decades (i.e. with a President or CEO, and with different layers of management), and you’ve already identified a new management team to take over for you (or you intend to stay and keep running the company yourself), that works perfectly well with an EOT.
So, the EOT gives business owners a new alternative for selling their business, financed by the future cash flows, and in a way that limits disruption at the company as much as possible. Using a trust is helpful to make all this work, and the EOT is a new trust that’s set up specifically for this purpose.
How much of my company do I need to sell to use an EOT?
In order to qualify as an EOT, at least 51% of the company needs to be sold to it in the initial transaction. An EOT needs to be the majority shareholder of the company. In the UK, the most common percentage to sell is 100% — more than 50% of companies who have sold to an EOT in the UK have sold 100% in the initial transaction. One reason for that is that the tax incentive available to owners who sell their companies to EOTs in the UK are only available on the first transaction. So, if an owner sells 51% to an EOT up front, and then the rest over time, they won’t be eligible for the tax incentive on the remaining 49%. That will also be true in Canada — the tax incentive will only apply on the initial transactions.
As I said, if you’re looking to sell a minority of your company to your employees, the EOT is not for you.

Who am I selling to, exactly, when I sell to an EOT? My management team? Some of my employees? All of my employees?
In an EOT, you are required to sell to a trust that will hold shares on behalf of all your employees (both current and future). Today, many sales to employees in Canada are management buy-outs, where a management team will take some of their own money and buy out an owner, often with a promise to pay over time. That’s of course a perfectly legitimate succession plan, but the EOT is designed to be more inclusive.
Many owners in the US and UK have described this as one of the most attractive features of this structure: that all employees benefit, even if they don’t have the money to pay for shares. EOTs are often described as broad-based employee ownership plans, because of how widespread the benefits are for employees. Owners see this as a legacy for all the current and future employees that have contributed to their success.
This broad-based approach is also important for governments, and the reason why selling to an EOT will qualify for tax incentives. It’s been proven that these structures lead to great outcomes for employees, and keep jobs in local communities. That’s a great result for the economy and society, and as a result governments want more of them to happen. We’ll get to these incentives in more depth a bit later on.
In the Canadian EOT, once employees have fulfilled their probationary period, which can be up to one year, they will qualify as beneficiaries of the trust. Now, this doesn’t mean that everyone gets equal benefit, which we’ll get to now.
So, what rights and benefits do the employees have with the EOT?
First, benefits:
The employees are the beneficiaries of the EOT, which means if the company has enough cash to pay dividends, or if it is sold to a third party, the money goes to the employees (according to the percentage owned by an EOT. If the EOT owns 100%, they get all the money and if they own 51% they get about half, etc.).
How it gets divided between the employees is determined by a formula that is set up in the initial EOT document. Business owners and the initial trustee board will decide on this together. The formula can allocate benefits based on three different criteria, alone or in combination: wages, hours worked and the number of years worked at the company. There can also be different formulas for different events, like an annual dividend payment or a sale of the company.
For example, a common approach might be to divide dividends based on employees’ wages, and proceeds from a sale of the company based on a combination of wages and years worked for the company. So, if someone makes $50K a year, they’d get half the annual profit share of someone who makes $100K a year. But, if the company is sold and that person making $50K a year has been with the company for 30 years, they may get a lot more than someone who makes $100K but just started.
There’s any number of ways to set up these formulas — I’ve only scratched the surface here. The Canadian EOT is very flexible in terms of allocating benefits to employees, which is a great thing.
A Canadian EOT is also flexible in providing benefits as additional income (dividends) or assets (shares)⁵. This blends the UK approach, which focuses on dividends with the US approach which focuses on shares. The right answer will depend on the company and the objectives of the seller and the trustee.
You’ll want a good discussion with your accountant to work out what’s best for you and your company.
Second, rights:
While they don’t vote on every decision, employees do have important rights in an EOT.
They have representation on the Trustee Board, which has to be at least one-third employees. So, a Trustee Board of three needs at least one employee, and Board of five at least two.
The employees, through the EOT, are also the majority shareholder in the company. That means both the Trustee Board and the Company Board have a responsibility to do what’s in the best interest of the employee beneficiaries of the Trust.
While the Trustee Board and Company Board are the entities making most of the strategic and oversight decisions, employees get to decide directly on whether the business can get sold to a third party, or can sell a large division of the company to someone else. At least 50% of all employees would need to approve a transaction like this, so the company can’t be sold out from under them without their explicit permission.
In summary, the company can continue to be managed the same as it was before, but the employees now have a voice, have to be consulted if the business is going to be sold, and get to split the proceeds of any cash distributed by the company.
What about my rights as the previous owner? Can I continue to run the company if I want to?
After a sale to an EOT, the previous ownership is able to have up to 40% of the Trustee and Company Board seats of the company. So, you can’t control the Boards, but you can have a voice in decisions.
If you provided some of the funds to buy your shares by offering to get paid over time (which is considered a loan), you can get some rights related to that loan to make sure you do eventually get paid. That’s a topic you should discuss thoroughly with your accountant or lawyer.
And yes, if you’re not ready to retire, you can continue to run the company. And hopefully do a great job for your shareholder employees! You now need to report to a Board that will have employee representation, and that you won’t control. But many owners in the US continue to run their companies after selling them to employees, and are able to plan for a smooth transition over time.
For you, the business owner, there are some real legacy benefits to selling to an EOT. You’ve likely built up your company over years or even decades, and you care about the people it serves: clients, your community, your suppliers and your employees. Selling to an EOT gives you a great chance to protect your legacy by selling it to people you know and who know the mission, while increasing the chances your company stays rooted in its local community.
How does selling to an EOT compare to selling to someone else?
For you, the business owner, there are some real legacy benefits to selling to an EOT. You’ve likely built up your company over years or even decades, and you care about the people it serves: clients, your community, your suppliers and your employees. Selling to an EOT gives you a great chance to protect your legacy by selling it to people you know and who know the mission, while increasing the chances your company stays rooted in its local community.
There is a cost, though. Instead of getting paid most of the proceeds up front, you’ll get paid out over time out of company cash flow. Because you’ll likely be providing a lot of the loan to your company to buy out your shares, you’ll want to stay connected to the company for at least as long as the loan is outstanding (generally 4–8 years, but really depends on the transaction structure); it’s not a clean break. While you’ll be selling for fair market value, you won’t be able to have a “bidding war” for your company which might have otherwise inflated the price you get. And you’ll need to engage in the complexity of designing the EOT so it works for your company.
So, there are a lot of considerations to weigh when thinking this through. But as I said earlier, it’s quite a popular option in the US and UK for owners who care deeply about their company, their community, and the legacy they leave behind.
This brings us to two key questions: what type of company works best in an EOT, and what incentives are available to help me get over some of the negatives listed here?
What companies and industries are normally appropriate for EOTs?
In the US and UK, companies from all industries and of all sizes have sold to their employees through their respective trust models. However, there are industries and sizes where it tends to be more popular. Common industries are construction, wholesale distribution, light manufacturing, retail, finance and IT consulting and professional services.
The vast majority of companies are between 25 and 250 employees when they sell, with a tiny minority larger than 1,000. At the smallest end, companies just don’t have the administrative capacity to manage an EOT structure, and there just aren’t too many privately-held companies that are bigger than a few hundred employees. This still leaves a lot of companies! There are about 150,000 companies in Canada between 25 and 250 employees, employing about five million people.
Not to discourage anyone else, but I normally say that the best candidates for EOTs are companies with strong and consistent cash flows in mature industries with a thoughtful management transition either in place, or in progress. These things lower the risk of the transaction, and help ensure that there’s sufficient cash to pay the purchase price of the company, leaving a lot of future benefit left over for a company’s employees.
Finally, it’s often less about the company, or the industry, but about the owner themselves. Business owners who sell to EOTs are generally very passionate about their companies, and very much against the idea of selling to the most common buyers, like competitors in their industry or private equity companies. They worry about losing the culture they’ve worked years to build. A lot of Canadian business owners feel this way, as shown in this survey of business owners by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business.
Here’s Nigel Schroder, CEO of Herd Group, explaining what drove their decision to sell to an EOT:
“Within our industry sector we see so many businesses being swallowed up by larger competitors or taken over by outside investors when they reach a certain size…Invariably, the original business and the culture of that business are destroyed, broken up, diluted…The people that built the original business become a number and the culture that created the success is forgotten.”
This video, by the previous owners of Taylor Guitars in the US, is representative. If these folks sound like you, this is a path worth looking into.
We’re 2,000+ words in and you haven’t discussed these incentives yet. What gives?
Milk is at the back of the store for a reason — I wanted you to read the whole article. I hope you’re not lactose-intolerant because it’s time to talk about incentives.
In both the US and the UK, governments provide a tax incentive to owners for selling to employees in the form of a reduction in capital gains taxes. They do this because they know that selling to employees is riskier, more complicated and potentially (but not always) less lucrative than selling to someone else, and they really like the social outcomes of employee ownership. For them, it’s a good trade-off.
That will be true in Canada as well. The government has announced that the first $10M in capital gains in a sale to an EOT would be tax free. So, if your sale to employees netted you a capital gain of $20M, you would only pay tax on $10M, and if your sale netted a $5M capital gain, that gain would be tax free. Assuming you’re paying the highest tax rate when you sell your company, that means you could save up to about $2.6M in taxes ($10M gain, times the highest rate (about 50%), times the inclusion rate for capital gains (50%)).
This incentive is less generous than the UK, where the entire capital gain from a sale to an EOT is tax free, and the US, where an owner can eventually eliminate their capital gains tax (it’s the US, so it’s complicated). But, it is still attractive, and will hopefully encourage many Canadian business owners to overcome the challenges of an EOT transaction.
Importantly, the tax incentive is only available for sales to EOTs that happen before December 31, 2026. We hope this deadline will be extended, but if you’re interested in this and the tax incentive is important to you, my advice is to move as quickly as you can.³⁴
In addition, if you sell to an EOT you will be able to take your capital gain over a 10 year period, as long as it matches when your loan to the company is repaid, and as long as it’s at least 10% a year. (For example, if you sell for $10M, and are repaid $1M a year, you can claim only $1M each year). The business advisors we’ve talked to do not see this as a very meaningful benefit, but for some it might be helpful.
You haven’t talked about other kinds of employee ownership, like co-ops or employee holding companies? How does the EOT compare?
A worker co-op can be a great answer for an owner looking to sell to their employees, and there are about 500 of them in Canada today, employing about 6,000 people, according to Statistics Canada. The decision here is really about what works for your specific company. Most worker co-ops operate democratically, giving employees a lot of say on how the company is run. That works for some, but doesn’t work for everyone. The EOT is designed to provide an option for business owners who don’t think a co-op is best for them, but you should explore all your options. You can find out more at the Canadian Worker Co-Operative Federation website. The tax incentive for EOTs will also be available for sales to worker co-ops.
Employee holding companies can actually do a lot of what I described in this article. They can take on the loan from the business owner in exchange for the shares, and they can house the shares for employees. They’re also more flexible in some ways — you can sell less than 51% to an employee hold company.
There are a couple main reasons to choose an EOT over an employee holding company. The first is the capital gains tax incentive. With the holding company, there are no rules around a broad distribution of shares, or required employee voice, so the government won’t provide incentives for selling that way. The EOT’s incentive would not be applied to a sale to a holding company.
The second is that there can be a lot more decisions involve in a holding company. How will employees get shares? How will they vote those shares? What happens if and when a small number of employees gain the majority of shares, and have control? The trust model, through an EOT, limits these decisions to a more manageable number, and protects against any small group of employees from exercising too much control.
There’s nothing wrong with either a co-op or an employee holding company, but there are differences that you should go through in detail with your advisor.
OK — I’m still with you and I like it. What do I do now?
In the UK, sales to EOTs are often completed with the help of a company’s accountants and tax lawyers. Some firms have developed specific expertise. We’re seeing new advisors in Canada start to organize around serving this market: consultants, financial advisors, lawyers and accountants. If you write to me, I can give you some names, and I’ve included below a number of links to articles written by people who are becoming experts in this space.
I’m sure I’ve left a lot of questions unanswered, but hopefully some of the links below get into the details you need, and if not feel free to write me (I’m accessible, if not speedy, on LinkedIn). We don’t do any advisory work in this space, so any advice we give is both free and also non-expert. We can probably direct you to the right place.
Bringing EOTs to Canada has been a labour of love for a lot of people over the last few years. We’re deeply grateful to the government for establishing the policies we need for employee ownership to flourish here. Now that it’s real we can’t wait to see the community pick the idea up and run with it. It’s going to be an exciting few years. Let’s go!
Budget 2024 unleashes unprecedented opportunities for employee ownership in Canada
TORONTO, May 8, 2024 – Last week, federal Minister of Finance Chrystia Freeland introduced the government’s 2024 Budget Bill, which contains exciting new updates about their made-in-canada employee ownership strategy. The Canadian Employee Ownership coalition (CEOC) is thrill ed that the government has introduced a new tax incentive that will level the playing field with competing succession options and lead to the widespread adoption of employee ownership in Canada.
“This new incentive, combined with the government’s recently created Employee Ownership Trust structure, is poised to create tens of thousands of employee-owners over the next few years said Jon Shell, a member of the CEOC’s Steering Committee.
This policy initiative comes at a critically important time. Over the next decade, 76% of Canadian business owners intend to retire, and the vast majority have no succession plan in place.
The creation of an Employee Ownership Trust and accompanying tax incentive will, for the first time, provide business owners with a viable alternative to selling their businesses to intemational private equity firms or competitors.
“This is smart business” said Tiara Letoumeau, CEOC Steering committee member. “With every sale to an Employee Ownership Trust, we’re increasing the likelihood that companies stay Canadian-owned, remain resilient in the face of economic turbulence, and provide meaningful wealth for working Canadians.
Employee Ownership Trusts are proven public policy. In the U.S., where these policies have been in place since the 1970s, 14 million American workers are already sharing in $2.1 trillion of wealth. Since the U.K. introduced these policies in 2014 it has witnessed rapid adoption, with more than 1,650 companies becoming employee-owned.
“As the CEO of an employee-owned company in a small town, I have seen firsthand what a difference it makes in culture, purpose and performance.” said Chad Friesen, CEO of Friesens Corporation, and member of the CEOC Steering Committee. With these policies in place, the CEOC looks forward to working with governments across the country to support substantial growth in employee ownership.
“Employee Ownership Trusts (EOTs) are proven public policy. In the U.S., where these policies have been in place since the 1970s, 14 million Americans workers are already sharing $2.1 trillion of wealth.”
About Social Capital Partners
Who owns the economy matters. Social Capital Partners believes working people deserve a fighting chance to build economic security and wealth. A Canadian nonprofit organization founded in 2001, we undertake public policy research, invest in initiatives and advocate for ideas that broaden access to wealth, ownership and opportunity, and that push back against extreme economic inequality. To learn more, please connect with us on LinkedIn or Bluesky or visit socialcapitalpartners.ca.
For more information, or to arrange an interview, please contact:
Katherine Janson
Director of Communications
Social Capital Partners
647-717-8674
katherine@socialcapitalpartners.ca