Ownership as key to real change

Luc De Jaeger, board member at Funds For Good, explains how a hybrid model connects financial profit with social entrepreneurship through mission-oriented ownership. Peter Depauw, philosopher of economics and systems thinker at Steward-owned, sheds light on how alternative ownership structures can anchor missions as well as breaking the link between money and power. Together they explore why ownership matters – and how rethinking it can reshape the future of entrepreneurship.

Looking beyond shares and voting rights

“Ownership has been at the heart of our economy for centuries,” explains Peter. “It determines who decides – and for what purpose. Today, however, ownership has often become a lever for extraction.”

In his opinion, we should not reduce ownership to a purely financial mechanism. It is not just about who owns shares or has voting rights, but about the intentions behind those structures and the direction they take the company in in the long run. Ownership can be a stabilising force – if it is thoughtfully designed.

That’s exactly what Funds For Good has done. “From the beginning, there was a clear ambition,” says Luc. “The founders wanted to reconnect finance with social entrepreneurship. And that required us to make structural choices – not just strategic ones.”

Profit in service of a wider goal

At Funds For Good, some profits from financial products are structurally invested in people excluded from the traditional labour market – entrepreneurs with talent but without access to funding. “The owners are people who are actively involved in the business,” Luc explains. “When one of the founders left, the others bought back his shares. There was no conflict – just the belief that ownership should stay close to the mission.”

Considering alternatives

Peter sees this as part of a broader overhaul of ownership: cooperatives, foundations, hybrid models and more. “What they have in common is the ambition to align ownership with mission and long-term responsibility.”

One of the models he works with is steward-ownership, based on two principles: profit serves the mission and control remains with people who are actively involved in the day-to-day purpose of the enterprise. These principles are put on a legal footing – like a compass. “That’s how you protect your mission from slipping, regardless of growth, crisis or external pressures.”

Between mission and market

A clear structure does not mean that all tensions disappear – especially in today’s world. “That is a challenge,” says Luc. “Our revenues depend on the financial markets, but at the same time we are investing in the real economy. The question is: how do we build more stable revenue streams?”

Peter sees this as a critical design moment. “You have to think ahead: what kind of ownership do you need when things go very well or very badly? Those are the moments when ownership matters.” Steward-ownership can provide an answer here. By building in legal protection, decision-making remains anchored to the mission – even when the context changes.

From niche to norm shift

Alternative ownership structures are not yet mainstream, but awareness is growing. “In Germany and the Netherlands, we see clear progress,” says Peter. “Legal frameworks are emerging, and the debate is still ongoing.” Some change is also happening in Belgium. “There is traction,” Peter notes, “but it is still a big step to rethink such a fundamental principle. It’s about everything: power, trust, succession, values.”

Luc finds that this process of reflection often starts in smaller or family-owned companies, where the link to the mission is stronger. “That proximity makes it more logical to think structurally – and to protect what matters.”

Peter refers to the case of Patagonia as a tipping point. “They put their voting shares into a stewardship model and declared the planet as their sole shareholder. It was symbolic as well as strategic. It showed that profit and mission can go together – if the ownership model allows for that.”

He adds, “The point is not that making a profit is wrong. The point is that a company protects itself from a single-minded focus on shareholder value. That’s the difference. Steward-ownership enshrines that separation – between control and profit rights – in the DNA of the company.”