In December 2024, Senator Elizabeth Warren reintroduced the Accountable Capitalism Act, proposing that at least 40% of corporate board seats in America's largest companies be chosen directly by employees. The bill reignited a debate that's been simmering for decades: Should the people who create corporate value have a say in how companies are run? Across the Atlantic, this isn't a hypothetical question. In 18 European countries, workers already sit in boardrooms, reviewing strategy documents, voting on executive compensation, and shaping decisions that affect thousands of lives. Germany has done this for over 70 years. The results challenge everything we thought we knew about how capitalism should work.

Diverse corporate board meeting showing workers and executives collaborating at conference table
Worker representation on corporate boards brings employee perspectives into strategic decision-making

The German Experiment That Never Ended

Germany's approach to corporate governance, called codetermination, wasn't born from economic theory. It emerged from the ashes of World War II, when Allied occupiers and German trade unions sought to prevent industrial giants from ever again fueling authoritarian power. The Mitbestimmungsgesetz (Co-Determination Act) of 1976 mandated that companies with more than 2,000 employees must allocate nearly half their supervisory board seats to worker representatives. Smaller firms with 500 to 2,000 employees reserve one-third for workers.

These aren't token positions. Worker directors have the same legal duties as shareholder representatives, bound by fiduciary obligations to act in the company's best interest. They review quarterly reports, approve major investments, and vote on CEO appointments. By December 2005, 729 German companies operated under these rules, representing millions of workers who'd never set foot in a boardroom before the system existed.

In codetermined firms, labor captures 56% of productivity growth, compared to just 13% in the United States.

The economic impact defies conventional wisdom. A National Bureau of Economic Research analysis found that codetermined firms invest more in capital-intensive production, leading to higher wages and faster wage growth, particularly for workers without college degrees. In these companies, labor captures 56% of productivity growth, compared to just 13% in the United States. The gap isn't small, it's structural.

German companies haven't collapsed under the weight of worker representation. They've thrived. Volkswagen, Siemens, BMW, all operate with codetermination. They compete globally, innovate constantly, and maintain profitability while providing workers a voice that American labor unions can only dream of achieving through collective bargaining alone.

Employees casting votes in workplace election for board representative
German codetermination allows workers to elect representatives to supervisory boards through company-wide votes

Why Now? The Economic Case for Sharing Power

The timing of Warren's bill isn't coincidental. American workers have watched their share of economic gains shrink for decades. Corporate profits are surging while salaries barely move, Warren argues, and shareholders make out like bandits while the people generating those profits see stagnant paychecks. The numbers tell a stark story: 93% of U.S. stocks are owned by the wealthiest 10%, and more than half of American households own no stock at all.

This concentration of ownership creates a governance problem. When shareholders are the only voices at the table, corporate strategy optimizes for quarterly earnings and stock price appreciation. Long-term investments in workforce development, employee retention, and community stability become expendable. Layoffs boost share prices. Offshoring saves costs. The incentive structure is clear, and workers pay the price.

"Workers are a major reason corporate profits are surging, but their salaries have barely moved while corporations' shareholders make out like bandits."

— Senator Elizabeth Warren

Workplace democracy advocates argue that board representation would rebalance these incentives. Workers care about job security, wage growth, and sustainable business practices because their livelihoods depend on it. They're less likely to support strategies that pump up short-term stock prices while gutting the company's productive capacity. Having them in the room changes the calculus of every decision.

Economists have found evidence supporting this theory. Research shows that codetermined firms in Germany make different investment choices than their non-codetermined counterparts. They lean toward capital-intensive production methods that require skilled labor, creating incentives to train workers and retain institutional knowledge. This produces a virtuous cycle: better training leads to higher productivity, which justifies higher wages, which reduces turnover, which preserves expertise.

The productivity gains aren't imaginary. Studies comparing similar firms with and without worker representation found that codetermination doesn't harm efficiency. In many cases, it improves decision-making by incorporating ground-level knowledge that executives often lack. Workers know which processes are inefficient, which managers are incompetent, and which strategic plans won't survive contact with reality. Giving them a formal channel to communicate that knowledge can prevent costly mistakes.

Factory workers operating advanced manufacturing equipment in modern facility
Codetermined firms invest more in capital-intensive production, leading to higher wages and skill development

The American Proposal: Ambition Meets Resistance

Warren's Accountable Capitalism Act would require corporations with over $1 billion in annual revenue to obtain a federal charter as a "United States Corporation." These charters would come with strings attached. Companies would have to consider the interests of all stakeholders, not just shareholders. Directors who repeatedly violate the law could see their charters revoked. And at least 40% of board seats would go to employee-elected representatives.

The 40% threshold isn't arbitrary. It's high enough to give workers real influence but low enough to preserve majority shareholder control. In Germany, the magic number is closer to 50%, but with a crucial caveat: the chairman, always a shareholder representative, holds a tie-breaking vote. The American proposal would likely follow a similar structure, giving workers substantial but not absolute power.

Business groups have predictably opposed the bill. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and corporate lobby organizations argue that mandating board representation would impose bureaucratic burdens, slow decision-making, and harm competitiveness. They point out that the United States has no tradition of worker board participation and warn that imposing European-style governance on American companies could drive businesses overseas.

The competitiveness argument carries weight in political debates, but it's undermined by the German example. If codetermination crippled corporate performance, German companies wouldn't dominate global markets in automobiles, industrial equipment, and chemicals. The evidence suggests that worker representation changes how companies compete, but it doesn't prevent them from competing effectively.

Warren's bill has little chance of passing now, but it shifts the Overton window, making ideas that once seemed radical appear reasonable by comparison.

Political feasibility is another matter entirely. Warren's bill has little chance of passing in a divided Congress where corporate influence remains strong. Yet its introduction serves a purpose beyond immediate legislative victory. It shifts the Overton window, making ideas that once seemed radical appear reasonable by comparison. Proposals for minority worker representation or advisory employee councils suddenly look like moderate compromises.

United States Capitol building representing federal legislative proposals
Senator Warren's Accountable Capitalism Act seeks to mandate worker representation in America's largest corporations

Beyond America: The UK, EU, and the Global Landscape

The United States isn't the only country grappling with these questions. In the United Kingdom, the 2018 Corporate Governance Code amended regulations to require companies to establish mechanisms for employee engagement, which can include elected representatives on boards. The language is softer than Germany's mandates, offering companies flexibility in how they incorporate worker voices.

British businesses have responded with caution. A government consultation on employee board representation found that 40% of respondents supported the idea, while 60% expressed skepticism. Concerns centered on potential conflicts of interest, the challenge of balancing fiduciary duties with worker advocacy, and uncertainty about how to structure elections in companies with diverse, geographically dispersed workforces.

Despite the hesitation, some UK companies have voluntarily adopted employee representation. FirstGroup, a transport company, appointed a worker director to its board in 2018. Other firms have created employee advisory panels that feed insights to directors without granting formal voting power. These halfway measures preserve management flexibility while giving workers a channel for input.

Across the European Union, worker participation rights vary widely by country. In addition to Germany, Austria, Denmark, Finland, France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, and Sweden all have laws guaranteeing some form of board-level employee representation. The specific mechanisms differ. Some countries mandate a fixed percentage of seats. Others require representation only in firms above certain size thresholds or in specific industries.

A 2018 OECD survey found that a majority of member countries had implemented some version of worker board participation. This isn't a fringe idea confined to a few social democracies. It's mainstream policy in much of the developed world. The outliers are countries like the United States, where the entire concept remains alien to corporate culture and absent from labor law.

The European Works Council Directive adds another layer of worker voice. European Works Councils give employees in multinational companies the right to information and consultation on decisions affecting multiple countries. While not the same as board representation, these councils create formal channels for cross-border worker coordination, particularly during restructurings, mergers, and plant closures.

Recent legislative changes in Luxembourg further strengthened employee protections during cross-border restructurings, requiring companies to inform and consult worker representatives before finalizing major decisions. These incremental expansions of labor rights reflect a broader European commitment to balancing market efficiency with social protection.

Business team collaboratively reviewing financial reports and strategic documents
Worker directors access the same information as shareholder representatives and share fiduciary responsibilities

The Evidence: What Actually Happens When Workers Join Boards?

Theory is one thing. Outcomes are another. Decades of European experience provide data on how worker representation actually functions in practice, and the results are more nuanced than either advocates or opponents typically acknowledge.

Research on German codetermination shows mixed but generally positive effects. Studies have found that worker representation correlates with higher capital investment, slower employment fluctuations during economic downturns, and more stable long-term planning. Companies with worker directors are less likely to pursue aggressive cost-cutting strategies that boost short-term profits at the expense of workforce stability.

Wage effects are significant. Analysis of codetermined firms revealed that workers, particularly those without college degrees, see faster wage growth compared to similar workers in companies without board representation. Women and non-college men benefit most, narrowing some of the persistent inequality gaps that plague labor markets. The mechanism appears to be bargaining power: when workers have a seat at the table during strategic planning, they can advocate for compensation policies that share productivity gains more equitably.

Productivity is where the debate gets complicated. Some studies find no significant difference between codetermined and non-codetermined firms. Others detect small positive effects, attributing them to better information flow and reduced conflicts between management and labor. What's notably absent is evidence of large negative impacts. If worker representation seriously hampered efficiency, German companies wouldn't maintain their competitive positions in global markets.

"Employee representatives on the Supervisory Board have equal status with the representatives of the shareholders, and employee representatives on boards have the same rights and obligations as other directors."

— European Codetermination Standards

Critics point to instances where worker representatives have opposed necessary restructuring or blocked plant closures that would have improved overall competitiveness. These cases exist, but they're balanced by examples where worker input prevented management from pursuing reckless strategies. Board-level representation creates accountability, forcing executives to justify their decisions to people who understand operational realities.

One underappreciated benefit is trust. In companies with worker representation, employees report higher levels of confidence in management decisions, even when those decisions involve difficult trade-offs. Having a say in the process, even if you don't always win the vote, creates legitimacy that pure top-down management can't achieve. This trust translates into cooperation during challenging periods.

The flip side is complexity. Adding worker directors increases the number of stakeholders who must be consulted, potentially slowing decision-making. Elections require administrative infrastructure. Training worker directors to understand financial statements, legal obligations, and strategic analysis takes time and resources. These aren't insurmountable obstacles, but they're real costs that companies must absorb.

Implementation Challenges: The Devil in the Details

Designing an effective worker representation system requires solving several thorny practical problems. The first is selection: How do you choose which employees serve on the board? In Germany, worker representatives are typically elected through company-wide votes, often with strong involvement from trade unions. This works in countries with robust labor movements, but what about nations like the United States where union density has fallen below 11%?

Without unions to organize elections and vet candidates, companies would need to create alternative selection mechanisms. Direct elections are possible but raise questions about campaign finance, voter education, and the risk of factional disputes. Some proposals suggest that management could appoint worker representatives from a pool of employee-nominated candidates, but this reintroduces the power imbalance that board representation is meant to address.

The second challenge is confidentiality. Board members access sensitive information about business strategy, financial performance, and personnel decisions. Worker directors are bound by the same duties as other directors, including duties of confidentiality and loyalty. They can't leak strategic plans to competitors or share financial data before public disclosure. Yet they're elected to represent worker interests, creating tension when confidential information affects employees.

German law resolves this by treating worker directors as full board members with complete access to information and explicit duties to the company as a whole, not just to the workers who elected them. Critics argue this arrangement co-opts worker representatives, turning them into management allies rather than genuine labor advocates. Defenders counter that it ensures informed decision-making and prevents conflicts of interest from paralyzing governance.

The third issue is scope. Should worker representation extend to all companies or only large ones? Warren's proposal targets firms with over $1 billion in revenue, roughly 1,600 American companies. Smaller thresholds would expand coverage but impose costs on mid-sized firms with fewer resources. Larger thresholds protect more companies from regulatory burden but leave most workers without representation.

Industry-specific complications add further layers. Should worker representation apply to private equity firms, hedge funds, and professional service partnerships? What about companies with large contingent workforces, gig workers, or international operations? If a U.S. company employs thousands of workers in other countries, do those workers get board seats, and how does that interact with local labor laws?

Directors must act in the company's best interest, but what does that mean when workers and shareholders have conflicting priorities?

Fiduciary duties present legal puzzles. Directors must act in the company's best interest, but what does that mean when workers and shareholders have conflicting priorities? If a worker director votes against a plant closure that would boost profitability, are they violating their fiduciary duty? Legal scholars debate whether stakeholder governance models can coexist with traditional shareholder primacy doctrines, and courts would likely spend years sorting out these questions.

The Broader Debate: Stakeholder Capitalism vs. Shareholder Primacy

Worker board representation sits within a larger argument about corporate purpose. For decades, American business operated under the principle of shareholder primacy: companies exist to maximize returns for investors, and directors have a legal duty to prioritize shareholder interests. This doctrine, popularized by economist Milton Friedman, shaped corporate law, business education, and executive compensation structures.

In recent years, stakeholder capitalism has gained traction as an alternative framework. This approach argues that companies have obligations to multiple constituencies, employees, customers, suppliers, communities, and the environment, not just shareholders. The Business Roundtable's 2019 statement on corporate purpose, signed by nearly 200 CEOs, endorsed stakeholder capitalism, though critics dismissed it as public relations without substantive change.

Worker board representation would hardwire stakeholder principles into corporate governance. Instead of relying on executives to voluntarily consider worker interests, the system would guarantee workers a voice in high-level decisions. This institutionalizes a different understanding of what companies are for and who they should serve.

Opponents argue this undermines accountability. If directors must balance competing interests, how do you measure their performance? Shareholders can evaluate directors based on returns. But if you add workers, customers, communities, and the environment to the equation, the calculus becomes impossibly complex. Critics warn this could lead to paralysis, with directors unable to make tough choices because every decision hurts someone.

Advocates respond that the current system has already failed to deliver shared prosperity. Decades of shareholder primacy produced soaring executive compensation, stagnant wages, and record inequality. Giving workers a formal role in governance wouldn't eliminate trade-offs, but it would ensure that the people bearing the costs of corporate decisions have a say in making them.

The philosophical divide extends to questions of economic democracy. If political democracy means one person, one vote, why should economic institutions operate as dictatorships where capital alone decides? Labor movements have long argued that workplace democracy is a natural extension of democratic principles, yet corporate law treats employees as inputs to be managed, not citizens with rights.

Libertarians counter that shareholders own the company and therefore deserve control, just as homeowners control their property. Workers are free to leave if they dislike management decisions, and if enough workers leave, the company will suffer. This market-based accountability, they argue, is more efficient than bureaucratic governance mandates.

The comparative corporate governance literature complicates these debates. Different countries have developed different models, Anglo-American shareholder capitalism, German codetermination, Japanese keiretsu networks, and each produces distinct outcomes. There's no universal best system. What works depends on legal traditions, labor market structures, cultural norms, and political institutions.

What Comes Next: The Future of Worker Voice

Despite political obstacles, momentum for worker board representation is growing, not shrinking. Surveys show increasing public support for policies that rebalance corporate power. Younger generations, facing precarious employment and rising inequality, view traditional capitalism with skepticism. Even if Warren's bill fails, the idea has entered mainstream discourse in a way that would have been unthinkable a decade ago.

Incremental reforms may pave the way for more ambitious changes. Some companies have voluntarily adopted employee advisory councils that provide input without formal voting power. Others have experimented with observer seats, where worker representatives attend board meetings but don't vote. These halfway measures could normalize the concept of worker participation, making mandatory representation less radical over time.

State-level action might precede federal legislation. California, New York, and other progressive states could pass laws requiring worker representation for companies incorporated within their jurisdictions. This would create a patchwork system, but it would generate data on how different models perform, informing future national policy.

International pressure could also drive change. As European countries strengthen worker rights, American companies operating abroad must comply with local laws. This creates knowledge and infrastructure that could be adapted to U.S. operations. Multinational corporations might eventually find it easier to implement uniform global governance standards than to maintain separate systems in each country.

The labor movement's evolution will shape these debates. Traditional unions have declined, but new forms of worker organization are emerging. Tech workers are organizing around ethical concerns, gig economy workers are fighting for classification as employees, and grassroots campaigns are demanding better working conditions. If these movements coalesce around board representation as a common goal, they could build political coalitions capable of overcoming business opposition.

Technology adds another dimension. Digital platforms make it easier to organize elections, communicate with dispersed workforces, and coordinate across borders. The infrastructure barriers that once made worker representation logistically challenging are disappearing. What remains are political and legal obstacles, not technical ones.

Climate change may accelerate demands for stakeholder governance. As investors and regulators increasingly scrutinize corporate environmental impacts, workers could play a role in pushing companies toward sustainability. Employees often support greener practices more strongly than short-term profit-focused shareholders, creating alignment between labor rights and environmental goals.

The Stakes: Power, Prosperity, and the Shape of Capitalism

At its core, the debate over worker board representation is about power. Who controls corporations? Who benefits from their success? Who bears the risks of their failures? For most of the 20th century, labor and capital fought over these questions through strikes, collective bargaining, and legislation. Worker board representation would shift the battlefield from the picket line to the boardroom.

The economic stakes are enormous. If widespread adoption of worker representation led to the kind of wage growth seen in German codetermined firms, millions of workers could see meaningful improvements in living standards. If it enhanced long-term planning and investment, it could boost productivity and competitiveness. If it reduced inequality, it could ease the social tensions that have fueled political polarization.

But if critics are right, mandating worker representation could impose costs that outweigh the benefits. Companies might become slower to adapt to market changes, less willing to take risks, or more vulnerable to capture by narrow interests. Investment could flow to countries with more business-friendly governance rules. Jobs could disappear as companies automate to reduce their dependence on labor.

The only way to know is to try, and for most of the world, that experiment is already underway. Eighteen European countries have board-level worker representation. They haven't descended into economic chaos. They've remained wealthy, innovative, and competitive. That doesn't mean the model would transplant perfectly to the United States, but it does suggest that worker participation is compatible with market economies.

The real question isn't whether worker board representation could work. It's whether Americans are willing to rethink foundational assumptions about corporate governance. For a country that prides itself on democracy, the idea of extending democratic principles to the workplace shouldn't be radical. Yet decades of shareholder primacy have made it seem that way.

Senator Warren's bill won't pass this year, or probably next year. But the conversation it started won't end. The tension between capital and labor is as old as capitalism itself, and every generation finds new ways to negotiate that relationship. For workers watching their share of prosperity shrink while boardrooms debate executive bonuses, having a seat at the table isn't just about fairness, it's about survival.

Whether that seat comes through legislation, voluntary adoption, or some yet-unimagined mechanism, the push for workplace democracy represents something more than policy reform. It's a challenge to the assumption that economic power should flow exclusively from ownership, that the people who build companies have no right to help steer them. That challenge won't disappear because a bill fails. It will keep returning until the question gets answered: In a democratic society, how long can workplaces remain autocracies?

Latest from Each Category