Owning our future

The Case for Introducing Tools Allowing Entrepreneurs to Anchor Ownership in Europe as Part of the 28th Regime for Innovative Companies 

“Obviousness and necessity, when they meet, should leave no room for hesitation or respite.” 

Jean Monnet

The abrupt return of power-based geopolitics caught Europe utterly unprepared. For a long time, a convergence of global interests conducive to lasting peace, global cooperation, and shared prosperity was widely taken for granted. Today, it has shifted from a given to something that those committed to peace, liberty, and democracy must actively fight for.

Complicating matters further is the EU’s relative weakening on the global stage, as global power increasingly shifts toward more autocratic leadership. In this light, the EU must confront longstanding questions and resolve internal disputes with the utmost urgency. Its success in doing so – or lack thereof – will determine whether it remains a passive observer of the reshaping global order or emerges as an assertive, unified actor capable of helping shape it.

Given the complexity of the moment and the unprecedented speed at which history is unfolding, it is far from obvious what ought to be done. Over the past years, fervent debates have taken place about what measures the EU should adopt to maintain its relevance on the global stage and protect the so-called European way of life; a task made all the more difficult by the need to find alignment among 27 Member States with conflicting national interests.

From these debates, a broad consensus has begun to take shape around three key pillars EU policymaking should uphold in the coming years: competitiveness, strategic autonomy, and security. As we move to the implementation phase, these somewhat abstract concepts must start informing concrete policy action. For this to happen effectively, we need to examine what they actually mean and how they relate to the present state of our societies and economies.

A closer examination reveals that these policy objectives are deeply intertwined. Success in one depends on progress in the others. It is difficult to speak meaningfully of European competitiveness if it is primarily driven by non-EU companies. Likewise, genuine strategic autonomy is hard to imagine without sufficient economic power underpinning it.

And in an era in which geopolitical disputes are increasingly determined by economic leverage, control over data, and access to critical technologies, security cannot be confined to traditional forms of warfare – even when expanded to include cybersecurity. Today, security is just as much about ensuring that Europe and Europeans retain control over their productive assets. Therefore, aligning these three priorities ultimately comes down to a single question: who owns Europe’s productive assets – Europeans or external actors.

Over the past decades, we have witnessed the rise of new global market players whose size and influence have no historical precedent. The most glaring and often highlighted example is the tech sector, where early Silicon Valley innovators, propelled by a favourable ecosystem, globalisation, and the strong first-mover advantages inherent to the digital, data-driven economy, became deeply embedded in economic production around the world. Today, companies like Microsoft, Google, Amazon, Meta, OpenAI and others have positioned themselves to provide the essential infrastructure few of us can imagine living without. US-based tech fills every corner of our digital lives and, by extension, our lives in general.

The start-up world is another illustrative arena, with as many as three in four European start-ups being bought by US firms – a process that ultimately converts European innovation into foreign profit.

But US pervasion is not confined to the tech sector or the start-up environment. Our entire economies – all the way down to small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) – are gradually slipping out of our control. This trend is largely driven by the rise of US-based asset managers, which have dramatically bolstered their presence on the European continent over the past decades, expanding their portfolios to virtually all profitable assets. Estimates suggest that today US-based asset managers control 31% of European assets.[1] This trend is particularly visible in the stock market, where the Big Three US asset managers – Blackrock, StateStreet and Vanguard – are leading the pack.

Another particular hunting ground for US-based financial firms are SMEs seeking succession options. Hundreds of thousands – if not millions – of business owners across Europe are nearing retirement age and looking for someone to take over the business many of them have spent an entire lifetime building. Historically, their children were considered the natural successors, but changing trends and priorities among younger generations are making this option increasingly unrealistic and unpopular.

Filling this ownership vacuum with increasing frequency are private equity funds – a significant share of which is US-based. In the absence of succession tools designed to anchor ownership locally, hundreds of thousands of local businesses are poised to end up in the hands of anonymous shareholders.

This is problematic on at least two levels. Firstly, as ownership and decision-making move from local communities to offices in Manhattan high-rises, the priorities of the affected businesses change dramatically – instead of focusing on innovative products and services that benefit Europe and the world, now the focus is moved to (often financial) activities to increase returns for anonymous shareholders. Secondly, without safeguards to preserve European ownership of what is often referred to as “the backbone of the European economy,” foreign actors gain easier access to European profits and critical know-how, further increasing their bargaining power vis-à-vis Europe.

For decades, the ever-growing influence of the US on the European economy did not appear to pose any particular threat. After all, tensions between the EU and the US seemed little more than a remote possibility that only a few dared to entertain.

However, the current US administration’s pivot to a more aggressive style of foreign policy – which includes the blatant co-optation of its business champions – has laid bare Europe’s structural vulnerabilities and revealed just how much of Europe is already in their hands. It has now become clear that the EU’s systemic reliance on the US economy severely limits Brussels’ ability to negotiate trade agreements effectively, stand tall in the face of hostility, and ensure that EU citizens’ rights to privacy and control over their data are not merely an afterthought for US corporations.

On a more strategic level, the lack of control over productive assets is also constraining the EU’s ability to develop a serious industrial policy, decide what purposes innovation should serve, and fully reap the benefits of technological progress. If this trend continues, Europe will not only lose its ability to compete on the global stage – it will lose its ability to control its own fate.

Putting ownership back on the agenda

Encouragingly, EU institutions are recognising this reality and beginning to act accordingly. Over the past years, ownership has been making a noticeable comeback in EU policymaking. For instance, the European Tech Champions Initiative was developed with the intention of preserving European ownership of scale-ups. The recently unveiled Industrial Accelerator Act also represents a bold attempt at designing foreign direct investment policy in a way that prevents foreign dependence in key strategic sectors.

This spirit is also reflected in the Report on the 28th Regime for Innovative Companies with recommendations to the Commission, adopted by the European Parliament (EP) on 20 January 2026. Besides making it significantly easier for businesses to focus on growing and innovating in the EU, a perhaps overlooked yet crucial element of the current proposal is the introduction of provisions on employee participation in business through employee stock options (ESOs), employee stock ownership plans (ESOPs), and steward ownership.

Employee ownership and steward ownership structures in particular carry immense potential for addressing the pressing ownership problem. By offering a voluntary exit strategy designed to preserve a company’s mission in the long run and protect its ownership structure from external influence, they help ensure that European businesses remain European.

This may not be what all businesses need, want, or ultimately decide to do. Some may, legitimately, prioritize a large capital injection, and cashing out big. But for those entrepreneurs who care deeply about keeping their legacy intact and securing their company’s long-term, sustainable growth and autonomy, options like this should exist. Currently, this is not the case. Legal barriers and a lack of legal certainty stand in the way of broader implementation.

Employee and steward ownership are versatile ownership models that exist and thrive in businesses of different sizes and across different sectors. While they address the specific aims of the 28th Regime for Innovative Companies – offering an important tool for start-ups and scale-ups to attract talent and embed the long-termism necessary for innovation – they also provide a valuable option for businesses more broadly.

Employee Stock Ownership Plans

The ESOP model has existed in the United States since the 1950s and, since 1973, has benefited from dedicated supportive legislation. Today, there are 6,411 companies with an ESOP in the US (5,993 private companies and 418 publicly traded companies, where ESOPs tend to hold a smaller ownership stake), employing roughly 14 million workers – around 10% of the country’s private-sector workforce.

At its core, the ESOP model enables leveraged employee buyouts of profitable companies, allowing business owners to sell their business – or part of it – to their employees. It does so by establishing a special-purpose vehicle that acquires an ownership stake on behalf of the employees, with the buyout financed entirely through a portion of the company’s future profits.

This creates an evergreen employee ownership structure which, depending on whether it holds a majority or minority ownership stake, can be used either to motivate and reward employees or to solve the generational succession problem. In the UK, where a particular variant of the ESOP model – the Employee Ownership Trust – was introduced in 2014, employee buyouts have gained strong traction as a succession tool, consistently ranking as the second most popular exit option for business owners.

Dozens of studies have been carried out in both countries exploring the impact of employee ownership on business performance, employee motivation and retention, wage levels, and companies’ relationships with their local communities. Across these categories, ESOPs have shown overwhelmingly positive effects.

Over the past few years, an increasing number of EU Member States have begun exploring the adoption of the ESOP model – with Slovenia leading the way by introducing the first ESOP legislation in 2026.[2] Denmark followed shortly thereafter,[3] and discussions are currently underway in the Spanish government.[4]

All these countries have adopted a broadly similar approach to implementing the ESOP model, making EU-level standardisation a realistic idea. They provide a blueprint that could be easily replicated across the EU-27 without meeting political resistance, as ESOPs have long stood as one of the rare issues which unites politicians from across the aisle – even in times of deep political polarisation.

Steward Ownership

Another increasingly popular ownership model that can help anchor companies locally while safeguarding their long-term mission is steward ownership. Unlike traditional shareholder-based companies, steward-owned businesses separate control rights from profit rights.

Two key principles define steward ownership. First, decision-making power is entrusted to stewards who are committed to the company’s mission and long-term development rather than personal financial gain. Secondly, the company’s profits serve the business’s purpose and future growth first rather than short-term shareholder returns, with investors receiving fair compensation.

By separating control from financial gain, steward ownership creates a governance structure that encourages long-term thinking and independence. In this sense, steward ownership offers a middle ground between traditional for-profit and non-profit models. Companies remain fully active in the market and must generate profits to sustain themselves, but those profits are treated as a resource for the continued development of the enterprise rather than a vehicle for private wealth extraction. The result is a business structure designed to preserve autonomy, mission, and long-term competitiveness.

Several well-known European companies already operate under variations of this model. In Denmark, enterprise foundations have long acted as stable owners of large firms such as Carlsberg, helping secure long-term investment strategies while also supporting philanthropic initiatives. Similar models exist in Germany and the Netherlands, where steward-owned companies combine strong economic performance with a governance structure oriented toward continuity and responsibility.

Beyond large corporations, steward ownership is increasingly attracting mission-driven start-ups and family businesses seeking alternatives to traditional exit strategies. By creating a structure in which control cannot be sold or inherited but remains with stewards, entrepreneurs ensure that the business they have built remains independent and faithful to its original mission.

This model can also play an important role in addressing Europe’s growing succession challenge. Across the EU, millions of business owners are approaching retirement without clear successors. Steward ownership offers a viable alternative to selling companies to private equity funds or foreign buyers, allowing businesses to transition to mission-driven stewards while preserving their independence and local roots.

However, despite its potential, and similarly to ESOPs, steward ownership remains difficult to implement across much of Europe due to the lack of clear legal frameworks. Entrepreneurs often need complex legal structures – such as foundations or special-purpose entities – to replicate the model, which increases costs and legal uncertainty. As a result, several countries, including Germany and the Netherlands, have begun exploring dedicated legal forms designed specifically for steward-owned companies. [5] [6] If supported through appropriate legal frameworks at both national and EU level, steward ownership could become an important addition to Europe’s corporate landscape. By enabling companies to secure their independence, protect their long-term mission, and resist short-term financial pressures, it offers yet another tool for ensuring that European innovation remains anchored in Europe.

Europe cannot afford to wait any longer

If there is one lesson that can be drawn from the frenzy into which the world has been thrown, it is that Europe must learn to rely more on itself and prioritize bold sovereignty-enhancing measures – not in a decade, not in the coming years, but now. The crises that for the longest time were treated as merely possible are unfolding before our eyes. In many cases, in their worst-case form.

If the EU is serious about making life easier for European innovators, it should do everything in its power to expand the range of exit options available to them. In this sense, introducing a framework for long-term-oriented ownership models to which companies can voluntarily subscribe is a low-effort, high-reward measure from which Europeans stand to benefit immensely.

By enabling founders to secure the long-term independence of the companies they build, ownership models such as ESOPs and steward ownership provide an alternative to the default trajectory that too often leads European innovation to be absorbed by foreign capital. They allow entrepreneurs to reward employees, secure succession, and protect their company’s mission – all while keeping ownership anchored where the value was created in the first place.

The introduction of such tools would not force companies into a particular ownership structure, nor would it restrict access to capital. Instead, it would simply give European innovators the freedom to choose a path that aligns with their long-term vision and their commitment to Europe’s economic future. In doing so, the EU would take a meaningful step toward ensuring that the ideas, technologies, and businesses born in Europe remain an integral part of Europe’s economic fabric.

Ultimately, the question facing Europe is not only how to generate innovation, but how to retain control over it. For too long, the continent has excelled at producing talent, ideas, and technological breakthroughs – only to see them captured and scaled elsewhere. Addressing this imbalance requires more than funding programs or industrial strategies. It requires confronting the question of ownership directly.

The 28th Regime for Innovative Companies provides a unique opportunity to do exactly that. By incorporating legal frameworks that facilitate long-term-oriented ownership structures, the EU can give entrepreneurs the tools they need to grow, innovate, and remain anchored in Europe.

In a world where economic power increasingly translates into geopolitical influence, retaining ownership of Europe’s productive assets is no longer merely an economic concern, but rather a strategic imperative. If Europe wants to shape its own future rather than adapt to decisions made elsewhere, it must ensure that the companies shaping tomorrow’s economy remain, quite simply, European.

---

[1] https://www.ft.com/content/bc1b6eaf-dd5f-4e63-b4dc-90a30e9bec58

[2]  Tej Gonza, David Ellerman, Kosta Juri, Gregor Berkopec, and Tilen Božič, Slovenia Employee Ownership Cooperative Act: An Explanatory Guide to the New Cooperative ESOP Framework, https://ied.si/en/contributions/slovenia-employee-ownership-cooperative-act-an-explanatory-guide-to-the-new-cooperative-esop-framework/ .

[3] Corey Rosen, “Denmark Passes Law to Encourage Employee Ownership,” NCEO Blog, https://www.nceo.org/employee-ownership-blog/denmark-passes-law-to-encourage-employee-ownership

[4] https://reportondemocracyatwork.org/en/the-report/

[5] https://www.gesellschaft-mit-gebundenem-vermoegen.de/

[6] https://www.rentmeestervennootschap.nl/uitgangspunten/