May's goal seems to be to strike a blow against inequality by ensuring that providers of labour, not just capital, have a voice in corporate boardrooms. In Germany, half of the seats on the supervisory boards of large companies are reserved for workers' representatives. The chairman - usually a shareholder confidant - can call the shots in a stalemate. The double-layered board structure and union-heavy model goes far further than the UK would, but it's still instructive.
For one thing, even a step in that direction will provoke opposition. The introduction of the German system in 1976 was preceded by an acrimonious debate that dragged on for 14 years. Companies and economists predicted the demise of the country's corporate sector, warning of red tape and conflicts of interests between shareholders and workers.
Those concerns have proved to be misplaced. Arguably, compromises made between management and workers have contributed to more harmonious industrial relations. In an empirical study, economists Felix FitzRoy and Kornelius Kraft concluded that co-determination had a small, positive effect on productivity. It's also easy to imagine a bit of front-line common sense helping to rein in an imperious chief executive's overly grand acquisition ideas.
Yet there are downsides. German supervisory boards, which usually have 20 members, tend to be unwieldy. Divisions among investor representatives, which give union representatives the swing vote, can hamper needed change, too. Think Volkswagen, where powerful unions have been able to slow down necessary cost cutting.
Such a system may also mean employees in a global company's home country have a voice whereas workers elsewhere don't. At Siemens, for instance, two-thirds of the 348,000 staff are employed outside Germany. That could mean decisions are made favouring the domestic workforce.
May's proposal makes policy sense, given the "us-and them" sentiment underlying the recent Brexit vote and the widespread concern, including among investors, that public companies are managed with too much focus on the short term. One challenge, however, would be making it happen without a new tangle of just the kind of EU-style red tape the Brexiteers hope to escape.
You’ve reached your limit of {{free_limit}} free articles this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
Already subscribed? Log in
Subscribe to read the full story →
Smart Quarterly
₹900
3 Months
₹300/Month
Smart Essential
₹2,700
1 Year
₹225/Month
Super Saver
₹3,900
2 Years
₹162/Month
Renews automatically, cancel anytime
Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans
Exclusive premium stories online
Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors


Complimentary Access to The New York Times
News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic
Business Standard Epaper
Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share


Curated Newsletters
Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox
Market Analysis & Investment Insights
In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor


Archives
Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997
Ad-free Reading
Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements


Seamless Access Across All Devices
Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app
