display

After graduating from high school, his goal was clear, says Waldemar Zeiler. Before his 30th birthday, the founder of the Berlin condom manufacturer Einhorn wanted to become a millionaire. After five to seven years, he would have sold his start-up company to a corporation and bagged the money. Today Zeiler is 38 years old, still managing director of Einhorn, and his plans suddenly sound different. Cooperation with people is more important to him, as is adherence to long-term corporate goals and values.

Zeiler is now one of 1200 supporters of a new legal form for companies that would destroy the dream of making quick money through start-up investments.

It is called "Society with tied assets", in short GmbH-gebV.

The principle: assets and generated profits always remain in the company, owners cannot withdraw any capital.

Although they retain voting and participation rights, they only act as trustees of the company's assets.

A separate initiative was founded in autumn 2019.

Hundreds of companies have come together in the “Foundation for Responsible Property” to massively advertise the new legal form.

The supporters also include chocolate manufacturer Ritter Sport and mail order company Otto.

display

Now the proponents seem to have come a big step closer to their goal. You have succeeded in swearing almost all of German political celebrities to the idea, across all party lines. CDU chancellor candidate and party chairman Armin Laschet praised the concept at an event on Wednesday as an “interesting idea”, while SPD chancellor candidate Olaf Scholz called it “extremely sympathetic”. And the Greens co-leader Robert Habeck pointed out that his party had long since codified the change in company law in the election manifesto.

A new legal form would write economic history. After all, the GmbH, which is often preferred today, was created more than a hundred years ago. So will there be property in the future without access to assets? The reasons for such a legal form reflect a large portion of entrepreneurial idealism. Instead of profit maximization, the company's purpose should be in the foreground.

Because voting rights cannot be traded as an object of speculation.

After all, investors are no longer allowed to sell their shares at a profit, but would at most contractually inject further capital.

The hope: Only those who feel connected to the company's values ​​will take part here.

In addition, the hierarchies are flatter, the companies more social and sustainable, so the argument goes.

Because profits always have to be reinvested, used for better salaries - or donated to charity.

display

Economists also see better opportunities in the new legal form for entrepreneurs who manage the often difficult company succession.

These included above all those who have no children who are capable or willing to succeed, but who at the same time are critical of a sale to private investors.

After all, company shares can no longer be inherited or sold; instead, the company becomes independent in the spirit of a circle of brothers and sisters. "It's about safeguarding the traditional values ​​of family businesses - longevity, stability - regardless of the family," says the former head of the German economy, Lars Feld. It offers medium-sized companies another very good option for arranging succession.

And yet: Despite the broad support from top politicians, the implementation seems uncertain.

Although law professors have long drawn up a draft law that is ready for printing, they have recently revised it.

But the most important house is still extremely skeptical: the Federal Ministry of Justice.

"This revised proposal would also mean a fundamental change in German company law," explains a spokeswoman.

display

The idea boils down to tying up capital in the company over the long term and across generations.

Future different decisions of the following generations of owners or heirs would be excluded, the ministry warns.

In addition, the proposal has very fundamental effects that affect civil and possibly also constitutional law.

"That requires a detailed analysis and could not be implemented without a broad discussion," explains the spokeswoman.

In addition, considerable dissenting voices have already been heard.

For example from Birgit Weitemeyer.

The lawyer sees the new legal form as a "structure of the dead hand".

The one hundred percent and eternal lock-in effect on tied assets would restrict the free play of capitalism, said the director of the Institute for Foundation Law at the Bucerius Law School Hamburg last week.

Legal experts also often noticed misuse of such constructs.

Critics fear hidden profit distributions, for example through excessive boss salaries.

Debureaucratisation is more important

The concept has equally powerful opponents in business.

The Association of German Family Businesses sees no real benefit beyond that.

Because the idea of ​​preventing company assets from being sold off is by no means new.

According to the Responsible Property Foundation, around 200 companies in this country are already relying on such a concept - using other legal forms.

The automotive supplier Bosch, for example, uses a foundation structure.

Around 92 percent of the GmbH belong to the Robert Bosch Foundation.

And that is not subject to profit maximization, but is based on social values. "The investment foundation has proven itself as a legal form in Germany," says Rainer Kirchdörfer, director of the Family Business Foundation. It is an attractive option for both founders and established family businesses. "One should think more about reducing the bureaucracy of foundation law than about new legal forms such as the GmbH in responsibility," says Kirchdörfer.

The German craft firms see it similarly: "Business activity in the craft has always been based on the principle of responsible ownership without the need for a separate legal form," says Holger Schwannecke, General Secretary of the Central Association of German Crafts (ZDH). "Companies and companies in the trade do not think in terms of quarters, but their business activities are based on generations, sustainably and responsibly."

The initiators are aware of the criticism - and struck back.

They had the Allensbach Institute for Demoscopy (IfD) question hundreds of family entrepreneurs about their mood.

The result: 72 percent of the companies are in favor of the introduction of a legal form for responsible ownership - regardless of whether this form of ownership comes into question as a succession plan for their own company or not.

display

57 percent of the companies surveyed "generally consider responsible ownership to be a good solution," according to the survey.

And 42 percent can even imagine "continuing or handing over" their own company in ownership.

The initiative has also already won over a major critic: Friedrich Merz.

If the CDU politician had expressed his negative opinion in the autumn, he suddenly sees the new legal form as an opportunity for a new start-up period in Germany.

"It has to be fun for more people in Germany to run a company," says Merz.

His party should therefore work in the next legislative period to find solutions.

And anyway, the proponents see the biggest argument on their side.

"Nobody would be forced to choose the new type of company with tied assets," says economist Feld.

But those who want to choose such a form should also be able to do so.

“Everything on stocks” is the daily stock market shot from the WELT business editorial team. Every morning from 7 a.m. with the financial journalists from WELT. For stock market experts and beginners.

Subscribe to the podcast on Spotify, Apple Podcast, Amazon Music and Deezer. Or directly via RSS feed.