
"Our world as a whole is becoming more diverse: this is also being transferred to economic life."
A company generates profits and the owner accumulates wealth. But what if the organisation is run according to a responsible ownership model? Then our economy will become more colourful and stronger, says Anne Sanders from Bielefeld University.
Ms Sanders, where specifically did you last experience steward-ownership in your private life?
That's easy: for example, when I'm looking for something on the Internet, I use the Ecosia search engine, so I'm planting a few trees simply by surfing. Whenever I end up at Cologne Central Station on one of my many trips, I get my porridge from Haferkater. Another example would be Alnatura, where I go shopping. And I've been using Dr Hauschka cosmetic products for a long time. My mother used to buy them when we were doing well financially. These are all companies that practise the principle of steward-ownership in one form or another, or wish to do so.
What exactly is steward-ownership?
It is important to understand that steward-ownership in itself is only a concept. The legal implementation can take many different forms. The basic idea is that those who make the decisions in a company cannot profit from them. Hence the name: the holders of voting rights bear responsibility, but do not have access to the money like other company owners. Money is earned in order to reinvest it, pay employees good salaries, pay off loans and pursue the purpose of the company as closely as possible. This could be caring for the sick in a hospital, building good windows or even planting trees.
So it could be for any purpose?
There is freedom in the choice of purpose; it does not have to be charitable. You can also change the purpose. However, the purpose cannot be to generate shareholder returns. Profits should only be a means to an end, not the end itself, which is a big difference compared to what you see in many companies. Value-oriented action is the main priority for entrepreneurs who want to live the concept of steward-ownership.
And in what form can this be legally implemented?
In different forms, for example with foundations or with the so-called veto-share model. In the latter case, the concept is anchored in the articles of association of a limited liability company and an independent party, such as the Purpose Foundation, who receives a small share to ensure that these basic principles endure over the long term. In contrast to cooperatives, which are based on the principle of mutual support and are organised on a straightforward democratic basis, not every employee necessarily has the same voting rights under steward-ownership. But as I said, there are many possible variations.
What differences are there internationally?
There are some traditional companies that have committed to a foundation model that can also be categorised as steward-ownership. In Switzerland, for example, there are Rolex and Victorinox, where the foundations hold a majority or even one hundred percent of the shares. In the US, you can't do that due to the tax structure of those foundation models. Outdoor outfitter Patagonia has put together a double structure out there, which is similar to the Bosch structure. The capital is held by a type of foundation and the voting rights are held by another company. A model like this is incredibly difficult to set up and run and is all but unmanageable for smaller companies.
That sounds pretty complex …
It all depends on the legal framework in the respective countries. Because the law allows it, there are an incredible number of foundation companies in Denmark under steward-ownership, for example Carlsberg or Novo Nordisk. The current government in Germany has stipulated in the coalition contract that it wants to create a suitable legal basis for companies with tied assets. In the Netherlands, there are already very good auxiliary structures that can be used to assemble steward-ownership. However, because the Dutch are very pragmatic, the parliament decided in April 2024 to also create a separate legal form. And the Portuguese Ministry of Justice is also interested in suitable solutions. So, steward-ownership only exists in a few countries in a specific legal form. But there is quite a lot going on in those places ...
Where does this trend come from?
Our world is becoming more diverse overall. And economic activity also reflects that. There are many different people who see different types of entrepreneurship as the right thing to do. In the meantime, more and more start-ups are no longer looking for the classic exit, i.e. a quick sale with maximum profit, but want to preserve their values and ideals. You can even see it among my law students: only a few still want to spend a lot of money buying into a law firm. They want to be involved and take on responsibility, but don't want to bear the financial risk. A new corporate model is needed for all these people and motivations.
Can the concept be applied to every industry?
In theory, yes. But even if there is a lot of discussion at the moment, I believe that steward-ownership will always remain just one of many good options. The model is not for everyone. Some people want to earn money with their company and sell it for a profit at some point - and that's perfectly okay. However, I am convinced that diversity is part of a healthy economy.
Is there any justified criticism of the model?
In my view, no. At least there are no tax benefits involved. However, some lawyers believe that there should be no legal forms which are binding over the long term. Entrepreneurs should therefore always be able to change their mind as to whether they want to sell their company after all. They can also do this in steward-ownership if they no longer want to participate, but they cannot keep the proceeds of the sale themselves.
Many also believe that the economy does not work without greed.
Yes, but that's a very outdated position. Why else would people like me, who work at a university, school, police station or museum, be motivated at all? And you can also earn a good salary in a company under steward-ownership. The problem is that many people still refer to the Scottish Enlightenment philosopher Adam Smith. But Smith lived in the 18th century and his ideas about the free market were based on the simple baker or butcher. They needed more economic freedom back then.
Do steward-owned companies not need this freedom today?
Of course they do. They also have to prove themselves in the market and want to work free from state intervention. But today we are not only dealing with bakers and butchers around the corner who are personally liable for their debts, but with many companies whose shareholders change every minute and which are as influential as nation states. It is therefore high time we questioned our idea of economic success.
What incentives would steward-ownership offer?
My colleague Steen Thomsen from Copenhagen Business School has carried out a whole series of large-scale studies among Danish foundation companies and has actually found that these companies are more likely to survive than traditional companies and are no less successful economically. In addition, such a structure keeps companies in their own country because they can hardly be bought up by investors.
And new ownership models can also be helpful in the search for successors in owner-managed companies, can they not?
Yes, there are so many medium-sized companies that are desperately looking for a suitable successor. Steward-ownership would give them the opportunity to virtually give the company to a suitable employee who does not have the necessary capital - subject to the proviso that they then pass it on to the next suitable employee.
That leaves the employees: if they do not have explicit voting rights, what advantages do they have?
Don't forget that companies with an innovative organisational model or a modern corporate culture are more attractive to employees. With skilled workers in short supply and a Gen Z that chooses its jobs very carefully, this is a key advantage. Many of these young people want to work on meaningful projects, but not on increasing the value of the boss's shares. Many responsible companies I speak to have no shortage of applicants, on the contrary. Anyone facing these or similar challenges should therefore perhaps not only make adjustments to salaries and working time models, but also to the underlying organisational model.
Anne Sanders, 46
has a doctorate in law and holds the Chair for Civil Law, Company Law and the Law of Family Businesses and Judicial Studies at Bielefeld University.

This interview is issued by the brand eins CP editorial team Medien AG, Hamburg, on behalf of Migros Pioneer Fund.
Concept, editing and responsibility for the content: Margitta Schulze Lohoff
Text: Laslo Seyda (fr)
Design: Deborah Tyllack
www.brandeins.de