Steward Ownership as a Social Movement (7); Discussion
A qualitative analysis and the theory of change
Part Seven: Discussion
This article is an excerpt from my research project.
The interviews are excluded in order to comply with data protection regulations and to protect personality rights of research subjects. Furthermore, information that would allow the identification of specific individuals has been removed from the research data.
Please note that the field of steward ownership is undergoing significant change and evolution and the conversation around steward ownership is dynamic and ongoing. As this research was conducted at the beginning of 2021 some parts of this project could already be outdated. As such, it is advisable to be aware of these updates in order to have a complete and accurate understanding of the field. You can stay informed on the latest developments by following trustworthy sources such as the Purpose Economy and the Stiftung Verantwortungseigentum.
Is steward ownership a social movement? The answer is yes and no. In movement research, by definition, there is only.
“little agreement among theorists in the field as to just what a movement is, what would qualify as a new type of movement, and what the meaning of a social movement as distinct from a political party or interest group might be” (Cohen, 1984, p. 663).
Even if steward ownership is ascribed to the notion of a movement, it is debatable whether one can speak of a social movement. First, social movements rhetorically emphasize a collision of dynamic forces within the social system, which stresses that in social movements, in particular, social change is the ultimate goal (Stickler, 2005, p. 94). Steward ownership is initially based on the mission to redefine corporate ownership. For this reason, the focus is on economic change, not social change. Social change in the direction of equality, equal opportunities, or true meritocracy is an indirect potential that cannot be proven immediately but could unfold in the further course of implementation.
Secondly, the goal of a social movement is to mobilize broad sections of the population (ibid., p. 95). In the case of steward ownership, this is not the immediate goal. Instead, political and economic decision-makers are targeted. The broader public’s attention is, at least for the moment, a by-product. Third, social movements are unconsolidated entities that cannot be directly delimited and addressed. Rather, they result in a diffuse association of supporters, sympathizers, or active participants who try to influence a system from the outside. With starting in or transferring into steward ownership, organizational patterns are formed and, through the implementation of the legal form, also an institutionalization product. A social movement thus loses movement character (ibid., p. 98). Steward ownership is within the purpose movement, sometimes freely organized, but it shows characteristics of an organization with clear structures and rules.
If all other characteristics are brought into focus, it is still possible to speak of a character of the movement. This is based on the “construction and maintenance of a ‘we-feeling,’ a community dimension and a collective self-awareness” (ibid., p. 95). To strengthen identity, not money nor power are constitutive but a common language. The frame about steward ownership being part of the more prominent New Work movement, the unsustainable state of the hypercapitalist system, and the collective mission to change the paradigm of the economy through a new ownership model are essential parameters that reveal movement traits. Combined with the statements of the interview participants, who have a shared attitude towards the world and their fellow human beings, a collective movement identity seems to exist.
In conclusion, the insights gained from the interviews can be translated into two theses about the theory of change of steward ownership:
Steward ownership as an accelerator of the post-growth economy through a new narrative about money & power
That prosperity no longer stands for capital alone but for the quality of living and working together is the promise of a worldview underlying the post-growth economy. German economist and growth critic Niko Paech addresses this in his book “Befreiung vom Überfluss. Auf dem Weg in die Postwachstumsökonomie” (Liberation from excess: The road to a post-growth economy) (Paech, 2012). Paech sees the scarcity of time and the sensory overload as results of capitalism and pleads for a way of life that is, in his words, sufficient and substantial in order to counteract the unfavorable effects. Cooperation instead of competition, responsibility instead of greed for profit, and community feeling instead of egoism; are values that are considered stabilizers and could be drawn from the interviews.
Get Sue Sarikaya’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
SPD Secretary General Lars Klingbeil confirms this to be seen in steward ownership. He summarizes that steward ownership is a way to institutionalize solidarity and reconnect the social market economy with the common good (Klingbeil & Bartelt, 2020). Tim Leberecht, one of the founders of the “House of Beautiful Business” think tank, summarizes in a recent article in the Süddeutsche Zeitung (2020), “[W]hen growth is the symbol of success, and success the core of identity, winning becomes inevitable.” The eternal pursuit of winning is the “source code of growth fetishism” (2020). Due to the anchoring of the purpose principle in the DNA of the company, steward ownership could have the potential to institutionalize the basic ideas of the post-growth economy in companies, as long-termism instead of short-termism becomes the new imperative.
From efficiency and acceleration to resonance and sufficiency
Hartmut Rosa, sociologist, political scientist, and author of the work “Beschleunigung — Die Veränderung der Zeitstrukturen in der Moderne” (Acceleration — The Change of Time Structures in Modernity) (2005) postulates that modern societies are dependent on continuous growth, acceleration and innovation compression. He describes this in condensed form as the “Steigerungslogik der Moderne” (modern logic of growth). In ever shorter intervals, individuals, groups, and organizations are called upon to adapt, keep up, and optimize themselves (ibid., p. 248).
He argues that this compulsion of modern capitalism to grow endlessly leads to an alienation between the self and the world (Rosa, 2013). In the 2016 published work “Resonance. A Sociology of the World Relationship,” Rosa sees resonance as the answer. He defines it as a fundamental longing for a world that answers (Thöne, 2016). The hamster wheel is turning faster and faster, putting society in a kind of aggressive mode toward the world. Rosa opens an article with the taz (Feddersen, 2020).
The sociologist is convinced, however, that rethinking can only happen in resonance spaces. Steward ownership can create such a resonance moment because it decelerates by focusing on the long term. More room for reason and sufficiency is opened. Companies that see profit as a means to an end are ultimately more crisis-resistant and more capable of dealing with complexity than their competitors (Johnstone-Louis et al., 2020, p. 245).
The power for dynamic change in the gravitational field of business from within;
This frames the interviewees’ perceptions of the change potential of steward ownership. According to University of Oxford professor Colin Mayer, there are only two routes in such a change process: to continue on the familiar path compulsively or to recognize the need for significant transformation. The first path would lead to collapses and crises of the financial systems and neglect and destruction of nature. In contrast, the second path would have companies that serve society, the general public, and customers (Purpose Foundation, 2017, p. 97).
. . .
I won’t publish my whole research but if you have specific questions or if you are particularly interested in my research design, sampling method or my full bibliography, please leave me a hello.
This is the seventh and last article from my series on Steward Ownership as a Social Movement. You can navigate yourself through different chapters, based on what you like to read the most.
Here is your way to the other articles, in chronological order:
Steward Ownership as a Social Movement (1); Steward Ownership
Steward Ownership as a Social Movement (2); Legal Structures for Steward Ownership
Steward Ownership as a Social Movement (3); The Power of Ownership
Steward Ownership as a Social Movement (4); The State of Research
Steward Ownership as a Social Movement (5); Theory of Social Movements
Steward Ownership as a Social Movement (6); Findings
