My Dream: A More Equitable Future

I have a dream.

A future in which my grandchildren grow up in a country where work pays again. Where the company you build cannot simply be sold to the highest bidder, because your colleagues are co-owners. Where you drop your children off at school in the morning — a good school, in the neighbourhood, open to everyone. Where caring for your parents is not a choice between money and love. Where the air is clean and the farmer builds for his grandchildren on his land, not for the next quarterly report.

Not everyone equal, but everyone with equal opportunities. Development, care, education and healthy food accessible to everyone.

That is my dream. Perhaps you know the question entrepreneurs often ask me: “I do my best, I follow the rules — why would I change anything?” This article is my answer. And it is not a lament about what is broken — it is an invitation to build that dream together.

That dream does not build itself. Three forces stand in the way:

The gap between rich and poor is growing. Those who own assets earn faster than those who work (Piketty; World Inequality Report 2022). Work must pay again: labour income has stagnated or even fallen after inflation, while income from capital has risen faster than ever (Rabobank; CBS).

Democracy is being hollowed out. Far-right parties come to power through elections and then hollow out that same democracy — claiming: “this is what the majority wants, they voted for us.” The rules that protect us are called into question the moment they get in the way. And who benefits in the end? A small minority that serves the rich and powerful.

The economy collides with the limits of the planet. Infinite growth on a finite planet is impossible. Yet we keep using GDP as the only yardstick — while GDP measures wealth, not well-being. From healthcare to volunteering: much of what makes our lives valuable goes uncounted.

Behind these three lies one core problem: we measure and reward the wrong things. And we will not change that by waiting for politics or campaigns. We change it in companies, in networks, in conversations.

What the dream could look like

Before I invite you to build along, first the picture. Imagine the building blocks below becoming the norm:

The company you build is not for sale. The remaining profit goes to the purpose: better working hours for your colleagues, a lower energy bill, training for the team. At the bank where you keep your money, you decide as a member — and that money is invested locally, not in fossil fuels or weapons. Your pension fund invests not in the highest return, but in what your grandchildren need. The bakery on the corner is a co-operative of four entrepreneurs who share the work and the profit. And the meeting about your company’s results ends with the question: what does this mean for the people who stand here every day? While you and your co-owners close the meeting, what your colleague earns is the first item on the agenda: what she gets, what she co-decides, and whether her training is paid for.

This is not fantasy. Every element is already in use today — just far too rarely as the norm. That is the challenge.

The building blocks of the dream already exist

I believe in two building blocks — not a complete solution, but parts I consider essential and that have already proven themselves.

More non-profits, steward ownership and co-operatives. Companies that exist not to maximise profit for shareholders, but to create value for people and the planet. In steward ownership, capital can no longer be extracted from the company — profit serves the purpose, not the other way around.

Tax capital more, labour less. Work must pay again. Not radical, but clear: shift the tax burden from labour to capital. And this is not a left-wing dream, but the vision of economists: Gabriel Zucman calculated that billionaires pay a lower percentage in tax than the rest of us — his proposal for a 2% minimum tax on wealth above 100 million has been on the table at the G20 since 2024 (Zucman).

And it is no utopia. The proof exists, and it has been around for decades:

• Robert Bosch GmbH is roughly 94% owned by the Robert Bosch Stiftung; the dividend goes to healthcare, research and education, and an industrial trust protects the company from short-term pressure (Robert Bosch Stiftung).
• Carl Zeiss and Schott have been owned by the Carl-Zeiss-Stiftung since 1889 — Ernst Abbe wanted to ensure the company could never be sold. Profit goes to science; the company grows without external shareholders (Carl Zeiss Foundation).
• Research on companies in 28 countries shows that foundation-owned companies score 7.7 to 8.3 percentage points higher on sustainability (ESG) and perform just as well financially — and during the 2008 crisis they kept up their sustainability investments, while conventional companies cut them back (Thomsen & Schröder).
• Co-operatives survive more often: in Uruguay, the chance that a co-operative closes is 29% lower than for comparable conventional companies (Burdín, 2014); in Québec, 62% survive the first five years, against 35% of conventional companies (Gouvernement du Québec). Workers in co-operatives have more stable jobs and the returns stay in the community (Pérotin).

And does this hold for the second building block too? Yes — and note: this is about equity, not sameness. Not everyone the same, but everyone of equal worth. The research looks at the size of the gap between rich and poor: the smaller that gap, the better a country scores on life expectancy, mental health, trust and education (Wilkinson & Pickett, The Spirit Level; the 2025 reanalysis by Greener confirms this with recent data). Moreover, IMF research shows that redistribution does not harm growth — countries with less inequality enjoy longer and stronger growth spells (Ostry, Berg & Tsangarides). Michael Sandel explains in The Tyranny of Merit why this is not only about numbers: meritocracy flatters the winners and blames the losers for their own loss.

I see this happening in Europe too. In the shorts in this series, female leaders show how it works:

• Antje von Dewitz (VAUDE): makes rainwear PFAS-free years before regulation demands it, brings public transport to her remote factory in the Alps, and proves that radical quality and loyalty to people and planet beat cheap fast fashion.
• Melanie Rieback (Nonprofit Ventures): builds commercial software as a non-profit — growth without the pressure to sell out or go public, with surpluses flowing back to the mission instead of to capital.

The question is not whether it can be done. The question is when you will make the decision.

What does this bring you as an entrepreneur?

This is not a story about sacrifice. Bosch and Zeiss have existed for over a hundred years because this model works, not despite it. What you gain as an entrepreneur:

• No struggle with co-owners. No shareholder who at some point forces an exit you do not believe in.
• Colleagues who stay. Permanent contracts and fair pay — as at companies like these — cost less than constantly recruiting and retraining in a tight labour market.
• Funding without dilution. Growth without giving up your shares to investors.
• A company that outlives you. You build something that does not cease to exist at the first sale.

The ladder does not stop at the owner

All these examples have one thing in common: they are written from the entrepreneur’s perspective. But what does your decision mean for the one who fills the ovens? The one who gets up at five in the morning, while you and your three co-owners of the bakery arrive later? The answer is not simply a shift from ‘subordinate of an owner’ to ‘subordinate of a mission’ — it only becomes real change when your mission sees your colleague too.

That is why my ladder does not stop at the owner. The same ladder, three rungs, for everyone who works in your company:

• Rung one — security. Your colleague gets a permanent contract. A promise that cannot simply be revoked by someone with shares.
• Rung two — decision power. Your colleague sits at the table, not outside the door. And their knowledge weighs as much as yours, because they see what you do not see: where the work stalls, where customers leave, and where the solution lies.
• Rung three — a share. Your colleague gets profit-sharing with a name and a percentage. And in time, co-ownership, if they choose to take that step.

The existence of a ladder does not mean everyone must end up at the top. Some of your colleagues would rather bake than sit in meetings — that is a choice, not exploitation, as long as that choice is rewarded with security and profit-sharing. And here is the part that matters to you: every rung makes your company stronger. Security keeps people. Decision power surfaces problems before they become expensive. A share makes everyone work for the same goal.

So the question for you as an entrepreneur is not: “how do I make my people co-owners?” But: “which rung is each of them on now, and who wants to climb?”

Why I do not wait for politics

I am not doing this through politics. I work with three instruments, and I invite you to use them together with me:

Asking questions. Not to win, but to discover what is really going on — in yourself, in your team, among the entrepreneurs around you.

Listening. With genuine interest, not simply waiting for your turn. Those who truly listen hear the systems people are stuck in.

Trust. Acting first instead of demanding proof. Trust, laid down in statutes, is the strongest foundation a company can build — that is precisely what steward ownership and co-operatives are.

And one IDG habit at a time, practised together with someone else. (IDG stands for Inner Development Goals: the skills you need to change as a person — listening, collaborating, making decisions — without first having to change who you are. It is an open framework, built with thousands of scientists and practitioners.) For as long as the transition takes. You do not do this alone — you do it together.

What can you do? A ladder, not a leap.

You do not have to rebuild your entire company tomorrow. Here is the staircase:

• Today: ask one question of someone with a different view than yours — and truly listen.
• This month: check your bank, supermarket and pension fund: who is the owner, where does the money go? Choose a co-operative or a steward-owned company where possible.
• This year: give profit-sharing a concrete form in one place in your company — a scheme, a percentage, something your employees can find.
• In the long run: have a lawyer calculate what steward ownership means for your company. And walk through your own company: which rung is each of your people on — security, decision power, a share?

Wherever you step in — step in. The dream needs no spectators, but people standing one rung higher than yesterday. And because you build that ladder, it applies to everyone who works with you: your colleagues climb along.

I do not stand alone in this dream. Antje and Melanie are already building it — their companies are described above. And there are more: entrepreneurs in the IDG hubs, in the post-growth movement and in the steward-ownership networks emerging across Europe. Will you join?

The door is open. Comment under this article, send me a message, or come to an IDG hub meetup. We do not spend an hour talking about the world — we spend an hour on your decision.

And if “make a decision” sounds like a mountain: start smaller than that.

Every story above started with one decision:

• Rahma el Mouden decided that her cleaners should get permanent contracts — in an industry where temporary work is the norm. That is how MAS Facilitair began.
• Antje von Dewitz decided to remove PFAS from all VAUDE rain jackets — the one material her whole industry still clung to.
• Melanie Rieback decided to build software the way open source works, so customers would not have to pay forever for what they already use.

None of them knew the rest of the story at the time. They only made the first decision.

So here is a smaller first step: name one decision you could make this month — one thing in your company that does not sit right with you — and bring it to the table at a meetup. Not a plan. A sentence that starts with: “I decided…” That is where it starts.

Imagine we do this together for the next twenty years. Then my grandchild will go to school in a country where the question “who is the owner here?” has a different answer: we. Where work pays, where the air is clean, and where the see-saw that now hangs so crooked is in balance again.

That is the dream. It begins with one decision: yours.

---

An overview of female leaders that work on a more equitable future

Sources:

• Thomas Piketty, Capital in the Twenty-First Century — when the return on capital exceeds economic growth (r > g), wealth concentrates and democratic values are undermined: https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674430006
• World Inequality Report 2022 — the richest 10% of the world population owns 76% of all household wealth and receives 52% of all income; the poorest half owns 2% of wealth: https://wir2022.wid.world/
• Oxfam, Inequality Inc. — the richest 1% owns 43% of all global financial assets; billionaire wealth has grown faster since 2020 than in the previous 23 years: https://www.oxfam.org/en/research/inequality-inc
• Rabobank, “Besteedbaar inkomen van huishoudens staat al bijna veertig jaar vrijwel stil” — the gains of growth increasingly flow to capital, and the labour income share is falling: https://www.rabobank.nl/kennis/d011308097-besteedbaar-inkomen-van-huishoudens-staat-al-bijna-veertig-jaar-vrijwel-stil
• NOS, “Waarom ons inkomen al 30 jaar bijna niet meer stijgt”: https://nos.nl/l/2246692
• CBS, “Lonen en winsten in tijden van pandemie en prijsstijgingen” — collective bargaining wages rose 31.7% in 2010–2023, consumer prices 37.7%: https://longreads.cbs.nl/dearbeidsmarktincijfers-2023/lonen-en-loonkosten/
• G20 Extraordinary Committee of Independent Experts (incl. Joseph Stiglitz and Jayati Ghosh), G20 Global Inequality Report 2025, released under the South African G20 presidency — extreme wealth concentration as a global emergency, with particular attention to its effects in the Global South: https://peri.umass.edu/publication/g20-global-inequality-report/
• World Inequality Database, “What’s new about inequality in Sub-Saharan Africa?” (2023) — the richest 10% in Sub-Saharan Africa receives almost 56% of total income: https://wid.world/news-article/2023-wid-update-sub-saharan-africa/
• Economic Policy Institute, “The Productivity–Pay Gap” — since 1979, productivity has grown (much) faster than typical wages; the precise size depends on methodological choices: https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/
• Gabriel Burdín, “Are Worker-Managed Firms More Likely to Fail Than Conventional Enterprises? Evidence from Uruguay”, ILR Review (2014) — worker co-operatives have a 29% lower chance of closing than conventional companies, controlled for sector, size and age: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/001979391406700108
• Gouvernement du Québec, Ministère du Développement économique — 62% of co-operatives survive the first five years versus 35% of conventional companies; after ten years 44% versus 20%: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative#Worker_cooperatives
• Virginie Pérotin, University of Leeds — review of research on worker co-operatives: at least as productive, more stable employment, end capital does not flow out to external shareholders: https://cooperationafrica.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/How-worker-cooperatives-can-impact-development-Virginie-Perotin-University-of-Leeds-UK.pdf
• Robert Bosch Stiftung — roughly 94% of Robert Bosch GmbH is held by the foundation; the dividend funds healthcare, research and education: https://www.bosch-stiftung.de/en/about-us/robert-bosch-stiftung
• Carl Zeiss Foundation — owner of Carl Zeiss AG and SCHOTT AG since 1889; profit goes to science and education, and the company can never be sold: https://www.zeiss.com/corporate/en/about-zeiss/present/facts-figures/carl-zeiss-foundation.html
• Steen Thomsen & David Schröder (Copenhagen Business School), “Foundation Ownership and Corporate Social (Ir)responsibility” — foundation-owned companies in 28 countries score 7.7–8.3 percentage points higher on ESG and kept their sustainability investments up during the 2008 crisis: https://journals.aom.org/doi/abs/10.5465/AMPROC.2023.12206abstract
• Gabriel Zucman, “Miljardairs betalen geen inkomstenbelasting en daar gaan we een einde aan maken” (Atlas Contact) — billionaires pay a lower percentage in tax than the rest of the population; proposal for a 2% minimum wealth tax above 100 million, presented at the G20 in 2024: https://gabriel-zucman.eu/we-need-to-tax-billionaires/
• Richard Wilkinson & Kate Pickett, “The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better” (2009) — more equal countries score better on life expectancy, mental health, trust and education; the associations are correlational and the causal interpretation is debated: https://equalitytrust.org.uk/the-spirit-level/
• Ian Greener, “Inequality and social harm: Revisiting the Spirit Level debate” (2025) — reanalysis with recent data confirms the link between inequality and socially harmful outcomes, but shows inequality does not explain everything: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00207152241245620
• Jonathan D. Ostry, Andrew Berg & Charalambos G. Tsangarides, “Redistribution, Inequality, and Growth” (IMF, 2014) — lower inequality goes together with longer and stronger growth spells; redistribution is largely benign for growth, except at extreme levels: https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sdn/2014/sdn1402.pdf
• OECD, “Taxation and Inequality” (2024) — tax systems can dampen or worsen inequality; wealth and inheritance taxes are underused and hit the top hardest, labour taxes hit the middle class: https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/taxation-and-inequality_8dbf9a62-en.html
• Michael Sandel, “The Tyranny of Merit” — meritocracy legitimises inequality: the winners believe they earned it, the losers carry the blame for their own loss (normative foundation, not empirical proof): https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/52155948-the-tyranny-of-merit