Alternative Ownership Configurations for Purpose in Family Business

A central idea at the 2026 IESE-ECGI Corporate Governance Conference in Madrid was Colin Mayer’s formulation of corporate purpose as creating “profitable solutions to the problems of people and planet.” Session 2, on family firms, shareholders and foundations, explored how families can structure ownership and control so as to preserve long-term purpose while also sustaining economic performance.

The three speakers addressed this question from complementary perspectives. David Reeb of the National University of Singapore spoke from finance and corporate governance; Anne Sanders of the University of Bielefeld from family business law; and Søren Staugaard Nielsen of the Ramboll Foundation from practice. Together, they showed that alternative ownership arrangements are not merely technical deviations from standard governance models. They can be mechanisms through which families protect continuity, align control with mission, and make purpose durable over time.

David Reeb focused on dual-class shares, a governance mechanism often viewed with suspicion. In public debate, such structures are associated with entrenchment, weak accountability, and risks for minority investors. Reeb showed why this view is too simple in the context of family firms. His argument was not that dual-class structures are always desirable, but that their effects depend on who controls the company and under what conditions. In family-controlled firms, dual-class shares may preserve strategic continuity and protect the company from excessive short-term pressure. This can give families the space to invest in durable stakeholder relations rather than managing only for short-term market expectations. In that setting, family control can function as a credible commitment device, supporting both purposeful strategy and attractive shareholder outcomes.

Anne Sanders shifted the discussion from financial structure to legal architecture. Her presentation examined enterprise foundations as a means by which families can institutionalize purpose across generations. By placing control in a foundation, families can stabilize governance, protect the firm from ownership dispersion, and embed a mission that extends beyond the preferences or lifespan of any individual owner. Her broader point was that purpose requires institutional support. Foundations are not costless, but they deserve attention as an ownership model for families seeking to combine continuity, responsibility, and purpose.

Søren Staugaard Nielsen concluded with a practical illustration of what such a model can look like in operation. Speaking from the Ramboll Foundation, which owns the engineering company Ramboll, he showed that foundation ownership is a core element of the company’s identity and strategy. The Foundation holds 97% of Ramboll’s shares and supports the company’s long-term development for the benefit of the business, its employees, and the communities it serves. Most importantly, Nielsen explained how this ownership structure underpins a business strategy centered on sustainability. Ramboll’s strategy is organized around four themes: decarbonization, resilient societies and liveability, resource management and circular economy, and biodiversity and ecosystems. Ramboll thus offered a concrete example of Mayer’s conception of purpose in practice.

The three presentations pointed to a common conclusion. Families do not necessarily need to choose between purpose, profitability, and control. Under the right conditions, alternative ownership configurations such as dual-class shares and enterprise foundations can help align them. For family business owners, the message from Madrid was clear: ownership is one of the ways in which a family defines what the firm is for and how it intends to endure. For researchers, the session showed that these ownership forms should be treated not as anomalies, but as governance responses to the challenge of combining long-term profitability with social purpose.

______________

Steen Thomsen is Professor and founding chairman of the Center for Corporate Governance, Copenhagen Business School, and an ECGI Research Member.

This blog is based on a discussion held at the 2026 IESE-ECGI Corporate Governance Conference Family Firms: Purpose, Economic Performance and Social Impact. Visit the event page to explore more conference-related blogs.

The ECGI does not, consistent with its constitutional purpose, have a view or opinion. If you wish to respond to this article, you can submit a blog article or 'letter to the editor' by clicking here.