September 16, 2026
From SpaceX to Steward Ownership: A Debate on Corporate Power
Written by: Manuel Wirth
With SpaceX’s initial public offering, the concept of multiple-voting shares suddenly became widely known to the general public. This class of stock is designed to allow founders to retain virtually unlimited power over their companies. In this article, you’ll learn what such an ownership structure means for shareholder democracy and what opportunities “steward ownership” offers as an alternative approach.
SpaceX’s initial public offering was the number one topic of conversation in the financial world, and not just because of the record-high initial valuation of Elon Musk’s company. In particular, the introduction of shares with multiple voting rights—which are not available to the founder—was the subject of heated debate. Contrary to the “one share, one vote” principle, this class of stock is intended to grant Musk unrestricted power and limit the say of other investors.
Supporters emphasize that shares with multiple voting rights protect companies from hostile takeovers, activist shareholders, and profit siphoning. Critics, on the other hand, see this as a problematic concentration of power. According to an article by e-fundresearch, a system with differing voting rights can permanently cement existing power structures. Difficulties arise especially when companies face crises, change their strategy, or founders step down. The possibility of active ownership, on the other hand, can have a stabilizing effect—especially in times of major technological and political change—because critical shareholders serve as a constructive counterweight to corporate management.
Shares with multiple voting rights make active ownership more difficult
How do we assess the trend toward ownership structures with multiple-voting-right shares from a sustainability perspective?
“We view shares with multiple voting rights as problematic, particularly with regard to sustainability governance. Such structures—as seen, for example, at Alphabet, Meta, and Snap—decouple the exercise of voting rights from capital responsibility and risk, thereby weakening or entirely eliminating the shareholders’ oversight function.”
Active ownership is a key lever for encouraging companies to pursue long-term, responsible growth. Tools such as engagement with companies and the exercise of voting rights at shareholder meetings enable investors to influence a company’s sustainable development and strategic decisions.
For example, companies listed in Switzerland and supervised by FINMA are required to submit a sustainability report to their shareholders for a vote. If the report is inadequate, investors can reject it and, through shareholder engagement, exert more concrete influence to ensure that key elements of the reporting are revised. Furthermore, shareholder proposals can raise the visibility of sustainability issues and compel companies to respond publicly. We are convinced that such activities not only send an important signal but are also an integral part of an active shareholder democracy that must be upheld.
Shareholder Democracy Under Pressure—Not Just Because of Shares with Multiple Voting Rights
However, criticizing only shares with multiple voting rights does not go far enough. Conventional ownership structures can also lead to a significant concentration of power. Asset managers such as BlackRock and UBS hold significant stakes in numerous large companies and thus wield considerable influence over strategic corporate decisions.
In addition, shareholder democracy is being curtailed not only by ownership structures but also, increasingly, by regulatory developments. For example, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has tightened its practices regarding shareholder proposals. Since 2026, companies have had significantly more leeway to exclude shareholder proposals—particularly those related to sustainability—from the agenda. This weakens key instruments of active ownership and limits the influence of critical investors on corporate decisions.
Against this backdrop, a fundamental question arises: What ownership structure creates the best conditions for long-term accountability, innovation, and sustainable corporate development? In this context, the concept of“steward ownership”—or “responsible ownership”—offers a different perspective on the debate.
Steward Ownership as an Alternative Governance Approach
In a broader sense, steward ownership describes a corporate ownership philosophy in which voting rights—that is, power and control within the company—are deliberately decoupled from profit-sharing and asset rights. Unlike in the case of shares with multiple voting rights, however, this decoupling does not serve to permanently secure power for individual persons, but rather to safeguard the company’s purpose and its independence in the long term. Two principles characterize this ownership structure, which can be traced back to entrepreneurs such as Robert Bosch and Ernst Abbe in the early 20th century.
- Self-determination. A company’s managerial authority rests with individuals who are “close” to the company and who uphold its values over the long term (founders, employees). In this model, there are no so-called “absentee owners”—owners who profit financially but do not hold any positions within the company or have a say in its strategy. Voting rights also cannot be automatically inherited or traded.
- Purpose-driven. Accumulation and profits do not serve to maximize wealth, but rather the company’s purpose. This purpose should be codified. Corporate profits are not appropriated by “absentee owners” and redistributed in the market according to opaque principles. While investors are compensated for their risk depending on the model, profit distributions are usually capped or fixed entirely. In addition, a portion of the profits should be reinvested, used to benefit employees, or channeled through foundations for charitable purposes. This reduces the vulnerability to short-term profit-taking, speculation, or corporate sales, as increases in value cannot simply be withdrawn from the company. Steward Ownership is thus reminiscent of cooperatives and community-owned enterprises, which foster greater social responsibility.
Opportunities and Limitations from the Perspective of Sustainable Finance
It hardly needs to be said that Elon Musk’s SpaceX does not fit the definition of responsible ownership. Examples can instead be found in companies such as Patagonia, Mozilla, Triodos Bank, Zeiss, and Carlsberg.
However, from the perspective of sustainable finance, this model is not without its challenges either. The scope for active ownership is sometimes limited or nonexistent, as traditional shareholder rights are restricted. Furthermore, the ownership structure alone says little about the quality of a company’s purpose or its actual sustainability performance.
Nevertheless, Steward Ownership provides an important impetus for the current governance debate. The concept shows that issues of power distribution cannot be determined solely by shares with multiple voting rights. Rather, what matters most is which ownership structure best combines long-term responsibility, effective control, and sustainable corporate development. Especially against the backdrop of increasing concentration of power—whether through founders with multiple-voting-right shares, large institutional investors, or regulatory restrictions on shareholder rights—it is worth taking a closer look at alternative models of corporate governance.
Similar posts
September 16, 2026
From SpaceX to Steward Ownership: A Debate on Corporate Power
With SpaceX’s initial public offering, the concept of shares with multiple voting rights suddenly became widely known to the general public. What does this type of ownership structure mean for shareholder democracy, and what opportunities does steward ownership offer as an alternative approach?
June 1, 2026
CAPITAL WITH IMPACT
Through Forma Futura Invest AG, founding partner Antoinette Hunziker-Ebneter and co-CEO Larissa Jäger focus on companies that make the greatest possible contribution to a sustainable economy and society. But how does a sustainable asset management firm successfully navigate times of ESG backlash, greenwashing, and greenhushing?
