A Spanish lesson in ownership and voice

By Tom Powdrill, Project Lead, Broadening Corporate Governance Participation

Employee ownership, facilitated by granting workers equity, is increasingly popular. Advocates for expanded employee ownership include investors ranging from private equity firms to the Norwegian sovereign wealth fund, and the idea is popular across the political spectrum. PDI expects employee ownership to become a significant element of policy debates around AI, a field where we have recently published our own proposals.

Arguments in favour of employee ownership tend to blend the rights and economic interests of workers with the instrumental value of employee equity participation to business. The latter tends to focus on benefits such as retention, motivation and productivity.

Another justification for expanding employee ownership is that it would give the workforce a voice mechanism, since equity participation usually entails voting rights. Sometimes it is even implied that such participation might reduce the need for traditional forms of worker voice: freedom of association and collective bargaining rights.

PDI is very clear that equity participation can be very valuable for workers but it does not eliminate the balance between different interests in the firm. Therefore, it is not a substitute for freedom of association and collective bargaining rights. In addition, whilst the rights attached to equity might offer meaningful voice at scale, it often doesn’t include stronger participation in corporate governance. Even if it did, a small employee shareholding doesn’t mean meaningful participation in decision making.

This is why PDI emphasises the importance of corporate governance reform, whereby workers and other stakeholders are more engaged in corporate governance, rather than being passive subjects to it. Equity participation by itself does not address the voicelessness and mistrust that many feel currently, and that increases the appeal of populist politics. Aside from benefitting workers and other stakeholders, broadening corporate governance participation is beneficial for companies too, enabling them to stay ahead of the curve on emerging risks and opportunities. In an increasingly complex world, existing ownership and governance structures may not exhibit the ‘variety’ necessary to respond to emerging challenges effectively.

A recent initiative in Spain has made the case for expanding both ownership and voice in the workplace: the International High-level Expert Committee on Democracy at Work. The Committee was established by the Spanish government in 2025 to give life to Article 129.2, a long-dormant provision in the post-Franco constitution.

The difference between ownership and voice, and the need for both, runs through The Committee’s report which was issued in February this year. The report explicitly organises its recommendations around these two separate but related pillars. The underlying logic is that these serve different purposes and neither can substitute for the other. Ownership helps the workforce to participate in wealth creation and gain access to capital. Voice enables workers to participate in the governance of economic institutions whose decisions shape their lives. They are distinct forms of economic citizenship.

The report proposes minimum thresholds for both worker participation in governance and ownership. For larger companies this would mean workforce representation on boards alongside requirements that a portion of company shares be owned or administered by the workforce.

The ownership recommendations are notable because they move beyond many current proposals relating to employee share ownership both in scale and breadth. The report proposes minimum ownership thresholds of 2% for firms with 25 to 1,000 employees and 10% for firms with more than 1,000 employees.

There is a challenge in relying solely on firm-specific ownership models. If employee ownership is concentrated in the company where a person works, workers become heavily exposed to the fortunes of the single employer. Workers bear the risk of losing both their job and their accumulated wealth at the same time.

Meanwhile at a national level, ownership tied to individual firms may reinforce inequality. Workers in highly profitable sectors such as finance or technology are likely to accumulate far more wealth than workers in retail, hospitality or social care, even where ownership arrangements are formally similar.

The Committee proposes the creation of citizen-controlled investment funds. These funds would hold stakes in diversified portfolios of companies rather than concentrating ownership in a worker’s own employer. They would also support worker buyouts and business succession, helping workers acquire ownership stakes when founders retire and businesses change hands.

The aim is to democratise ownership of capital more broadly across the economy which reduces the risks associated with concentrating workers’ wealth in a single employer. The report explicitly notes that diversified ownership is a prudent investment principle and argues that workers should have access to ownership beyond the company for which they work.

These proposals are clearly radical in nature and how much of the Committee’s vision is put into practice is an open question.

But the committee’s two-pillar approach offers a useful corrective to the idea that ownership and voice are synonymous. Ownership broadens access to wealth and capital. Voice broadens participation in decision-making. Neither is enough on its own, we need both. Regardless of the specific nature of individual initiatives or proposals, PDI believes this distinction should be built into the approach taken by all of us - be it companies, investors, worker and community organisations or policymakers - seeking to create more equitable and sustainable business models.