SO—BR
Português Talk to SO—BR (opens in a new tab)

Contents

Knowledge base · SO—BR

Future Ownership Memo

Before the articles of association, a text. The memo is where a company records, in its own words, who decides, who benefits and what it wants to protect for the generations to come.

10
reading sections
16
numbered sources
6
audiences covered
5
legal models

Consolidated on 13 November 2026

Before you begin

How to read this knowledge base

This is SO—BR’s knowledge base on the Future Ownership Memo (FOM). Every significant claim carries a marker showing where it comes from. The sources are numbered at the end and appear throughout the text as clickable references.

Read by type of evidence

Evidence base

Three layers support what is written here.

  1. A real FOM template

    Purpose Consulting template, in the open version prepared for a client (a skeleton, not yet completed) Source F1. It is the only complete memo structure we have. Client material, confidential.

  2. Public sources from the Purpose network

    Purpose Schweiz/generational Source F2–F8, the international Toolkit Source F9Source F10, the Guidebook for Lawyers Source F11, financing material Source F12 and the steward-ownership.com hub Source F13–F15.

  3. The LAB SO—BR method

    The internal method that guides the transition journey in Brazil Source F16.

What it is

A written record of the company’s intentions for its ownership. It comes before the articles of association and contracts, and they are drafted from it.

  • Fact

    A written record of the company’s requirements for its new ownership structure; a condensed basis for drafting articles of association and contracts Source F2.

  • Fact

    A distillation of the process: a clear, specific document that spells out the company’s intentions Source F5.

  • Fact

    In the Purpose Consulting template, the memo is written in the company’s first person (“we”, “our needs”) and states that the solution was developed “in collaboration with” the consultancy Source F1.

  • Fact

    The same template defines the purpose of the document: to capture an appropriate legal framework, aligned with the company’s purpose, values, vision and design criteria Source F1.

  • LAB

    Anchor deliverable of Module 01: a preliminary structural blueprint plus legal pathways Source F16.

What it is for

The memo guides those who draft, aligns those who decide and explains the change to those who were not in the room.

  • Fact

    A brief for the lawyers who will draft the articles of association Source F2Source F4.

  • Fact

    An information base for communicating the change to employees, customers and partners Source F2Source F5.

  • Fact

    It structures the reasoning and documents the process Source F2.

  • Fact

    It fixes the design criteria as a yardstick for assessing the proposed structure, within legal limits Source F1.

  • Fact

    It separates, item by item, what will be legally binding from what is merely aspiration Source F1.

  • Inference

    An alignment test: the shareholders need to agree on a text, not on a conversation.

  • Inference

    An educational piece: almost half of the template explains fundamentals, for readers who did not take part in the process (family members, investors, lawyer).

What can be done with a FOM, by audience

Inference

The uses below are our own inference, except where a source is given. Each one derives from a section of the memo, shown alongside.

CompanyThe organisation going through the transition.

  • Commission and brief the legal implementation on a fixed scope, reducing rework and fees Source F2Source F4

    Memo section that supports it: Future structure
  • Communicate the transition to employees, customers and partners with a single version of the facts Source F2Source F5

    Memo section that supports it: Fundamentals; general overview
  • Judge any future proposal (funding round, acquisition, change to the articles of association) against the design criteria Source F1

    Memo section that supports it: Design criteria
  • Keep the institutional memory of why the structure is as it is, for stewards who have yet to arrive

    Memo section that supports it: Perspective and needs
  • Decide on a documented basis whether to proceed, postpone or not make the transition Source F5

    Memo section that supports it: Part B (analysis)
  • Open a conversation with aligned funders, showing that the governance has been thought through

    Memo section that supports it: Investors’ economic rights

FounderWhoever created the company and is preparing the handover.

  • Turn personal intention into a written commitment, before any irreversible act

    Memo section that supports it: Perspective and needs
  • Negotiate and justify their own compensation without an exit, with explicit reasoning Source F1

    Memo section that supports it: Founder compensation
  • Define who succeeds them and by what criteria, rather than leaving it to inheritance or sale Source F1

    Memo section that supports it: Stewards: qualification, succession
  • Talk to the family about what will not be inherited, with a text in hand

    Memo section that supports it: Criteria: sale, inheritance, succession
  • Separate what they want to lock in for good from what they are willing to leave to culture Source F1

    Memo section that supports it: Binding / aspiration
  • Test their own conviction: what they cannot write down, they have not yet decided

    Memo section that supports it: The whole document

LawyerWhoever turns intention into clauses.

  • Receive the client’s brief already structured, instead of extracting it in meetings Source F2Source F4

    Memo section that supports it: Future structure
  • Know exactly which rules go into the articles of association and which stay in internal documents Source F1

    Memo section that supports it: Binding / aspiration
  • Choose the legal vehicle from the requirements, and not the other way round Source F4Source F11

    Memo section that supports it: Design criteria
  • Spot early the points with no precedent or with company-law, tax and succession risk

    Memo section that supports it: Part B: legal pathways
  • Draft clauses for the edge cases that tend to be forgotten: exclusion, red lines, simultaneous death of the stewards Source F1

    Memo section that supports it: Steward and Guardians Entity
  • Check, at the end, whether the draft delivers what the client asked for

    Memo section that supports it: The whole document

EntrepreneurWhoever runs a business or is starting one, including the successor.

  • Design ownership from the outset, or consciously decide to leave it for later Source F9

    Memo section that supports it: Perspective and needs
  • Structure funding rounds today without closing the door to a future transition Source F9Source F12

    Memo section that supports it: Investors’ economic rights
  • Understand what they receive on becoming a steward: full responsibility, without owning the assets Source F1

    Memo section that supports it: Stewards’ responsibilities
  • Use another company’s memo as a list of questions for their own process

    Memo section that supports it: Template structure
  • Align co-founders on power and money before conflict appears

    Memo section that supports it: Design criteria

InvestorWhoever finances without taking control.

  • Carry out governance due diligence: who controls, what cannot be sold, who holds a veto

    Memo section that supports it: General overview; Guardians Entity
  • Know in advance the return, the cap and the path to liquidity, since there will be no exit Source F11Source F12

    Memo section that supports it: Investors’ economic rights
  • Assess the risk of mission drift and of value extraction by the shareholders

    Memo section that supports it: Use of profits; salary rule
  • Price and structure the right instrument: non-voting participation, mezzanine or debt Source F12

    Memo section that supports it: Investors’ economic rights
  • Negotiate information and consultation rights compatible with the structure Source F14

    Memo section that supports it: Votes for outsiders
  • Decide not to invest, if the thesis depends on control or on a sale

    Memo section that supports it: The whole document

LeaderAn executive or manager, whether or not a shareholder.

  • Know who they answer to and what the stewards can and cannot decide Source F1

    Memo section that supports it: Stewards’ responsibilities
  • Understand the criteria for becoming a steward and plan their own path Source F1Source F6

    Memo section that supports it: Stewards’ qualification
  • Explain the change to the team with confidence, including what does not change Source F2

    Memo section that supports it: Fundamentals; myths
  • Align pay and profit-sharing with what the memo defines

    Memo section that supports it: Use of profits
  • Take long-term strategic decisions knowing that the company will not be sold

    Memo section that supports it: Criteria: sale, inheritance, succession

Sections

The anatomy of the memo: what the Purpose network template contains, what public sources add and what the LAB requires on top.

Structure of the Purpose Consulting template

FactSource F1

  1. 1IntroductionEmpty in the skeleton
  2. 2Fundamentals of Ownership and Steward-OwnershipStandard educational text
  3. 2.1What is (Corporate) Ownership?A bundle of rights: vote and profit; sale, inheritance, gift
  4. 2.2What is Steward-Ownership?Two principles; a third way between sale and inheritance; benefits
  5. 2.3Variations: stewards and voting rightsMap of voting power
  6. 2.4Common MisconceptionsTen myths
  7. 3Perspective, Stance, and NeedsThe company’s position
  8. 3.1Design CriteriaFour blocks: Power/Votes; Money; Sale, Inheritance, Succession; Governance
  9. 4Current Ownership StructureDescription and diagram
  10. 5Future Ownership StructureThe core of the memo
  11. 5.1General OverviewModel adopted and main rights
  12. 5.2Steward EntitySee questions by entity
  13. 5.3Guardians EntitySee questions by entity
  14. 5.4Founder CompensationReasoning and solution
  15. 5.5Investors Economic RightsEmpty in the skeleton

Questions by entity

FactSource F1

QuestionStewardsGuardians
Role and responsibilitiesYesYes (role; rights, responsibilities and duties)
Who the successors areYesYes
Composition of the groupBinding / aspirationBinding / aspiration
QualificationBinding / aspiration, plus “definition of a good steward”Yes
Majority required to decideYesYes
SuccessionBinding rulesBinding rules
ExclusionWhether and howWhether and how
Red lines (exceptional removal)YesYes
Simultaneous death of all membersWho elects the successorsNot covered
RemunerationYesYes
Use of profitsYes (within the Steward Entity)—

The guardians hold a veto over changes to the aspects marked as binding Source F1.

Additional detail from public sources

Fact

The Purpose Schweiz documents add granularity that the template does not make explicit Source F7:

  • Votes for outsiders and advisory boards.
  • A salary rule that prevents shareholders from extracting value through salary.
  • Employee profit-sharing.
  • Transfer of capital rights.
  • Formal appointment of the transition decision-makers.
  • Terminology for communication.

The Guidebook adds what happens to residual value on liquidation and investors’ liquidity mechanisms: capped dividends, redemption schedules, buy-backs, put options Source F11.

What the Purpose template lacks and the LAB requires

LABSource F16

  • A summary of the diagnosis (Tensions Map, Readiness).
  • Alternatives considered and why they were discarded, including “not transitioning now”.
  • Brazilian legal pathways and the vehicle for each.
  • A reading through three lenses (CEO, lawyer, CFO).
  • Risks and mitigations; open points.
  • Recommendation, roadmap and those responsible.
  • Table of evidence and sources.

Consolidated structure proposed for SO—BR

Inference

A document in two parts: the company’s voice first, the analysis afterwards.

The company’s voice

Basis: Purpose template

  1. Introduction

    Why this memo, who took part, how to read it.

  2. Fundamentals

    Bundle of rights, two principles, variations, myths. Kept lean; the standard text can go in an annex.

  3. Perspective and needs

    Motivation, vision, tensions.

  4. Design criteria

    Power; Money; Sale, Inheritance and Succession; Governance.

  5. Current structure

    With a diagram.

  6. Future structure

    General overview; stewards; guardian or veto entity; use of profits; founder compensation; investors’ economic rights; liquidation. Each item marked binding or aspiration.

SO—BR’s analysis

Basis: LAB

  1. Summary of the diagnosis

    And the contradictions found.

  2. Pathways explored

    At least three, plus “not now”, and their trade-offs.

  3. Test of the two principles

    Does the structure deliver self-governance and protected purpose?

  4. Three lenses

    CEO, lawyer, CFO.

  5. Legal pathways in Brazil

    And points for legal validation.

  6. Risks and next steps

    Risks, open points, next steps with named people responsible.

  7. Sources and annexes

    Table of evidence.

The logic

The memo starts from needs and only then arrives at the legal form. The order matters.

FactSource F1

The template’s guiding questions

  1. Who decides and holds final control?

  2. Who has access to value and profits, and why?

  3. How are those rights distributed in the future?

  4. Should the company be saleable?

  5. Which rights should be heritable?

The template’s sequence

  1. Fundamentals
  2. Criteria
  3. Current structure
  4. Future structure
  • Fact

    Ownership is a bundle of rights that can be combined or separated; the memo decides the distribution right by right Source F1Source F13.

  • Fact

    Two overarching questions from the financing material: who should have control and why; who should benefit from the value created and to what extent Source F12.

  • Fact

    Sequence of the template: fundamentals, criteria, current structure, future structure. The future structure is judged against the criteria Source F1.

  • Fact

    Needs before legal form: do not start from the legal anchoring Source F4; stay at the level of ideas and needs Source F8.

  • Fact

    Legal set-up is the last step of a process that begins with the owners Source F11.

  • Fact

    The memo is the documentation milestone, between the ownership concept and legal implementation Source F3.

  • Fact

    Steward ownership is presented as a third way between sale and inheritance: the question becomes who is best placed to lead the company, regardless of resources or lineage Source F1.

The distinction between binding and aspiration is the heart of the memo: it obliges the company to say what it wants to lock in and what it leaves to culture.

Inference

Vision and taxonomy

The vocabulary, roles and models that give shape to a memo. A map, so you do not get lost in the names.

Vision

  • Toolkit

    To enable the emotional and organisational path towards steward ownership; to make the model accessible; there is no single answer Source F9.

    Fact
  • Hub

    Independent companies, flourishing economies, healthy societies Source F13.

    Fact
  • Template

    To replace the engine of profit maximisation with long-term development for the benefit of all stakeholders Source F1.

    Fact

The two principles and their names

Fact

SourcePrinciple 1Principle 2
Purpose Consulting template Source F1Self-governanceProfit for purpose
Guidebook for Lawyers Source F11Self-governanceProfits serve purpose
Hub and financing material Source F12Source F13Self-determinationPurpose orientation
SO—BRAutogoverno (self-governance)Propósito protegido (protected purpose) / profits serve purpose

The network’s own vocabulary is not consistent. Settle the equivalence within SO—BR’s terminology.

Roles

Fact

  • Stewards / steward-owners

    They hold the votes, take on entrepreneurial responsibility, do not own the assets and receive a fair salary Source F1.

  • Guardians

    An entity with a veto over the binding aspects Source F1.

  • Directors and teams

    Roles distinct from the stewards’, although they may overlap Source F1.

  • Investors

    Limited economic rights, without control Source F12.

Map of voting power

FactSource F1

Two axes to position the company. Move the controls and see where your structure sits.

How many steward-owners there are in relation to the number of employees.

Whether or not those who hold votes are also employees or directors.

Current position

Few steward-owners relative to the team · Votes held by those who work in the company

An illustrative exercise: neither a diagnosis nor a recommendation.

Toolkit stages

FactSource F9

  1. Soul Searching

    Artefact: Soul Searching document

  2. Understanding #1 and #2

    Artefact: No artefact

  3. Needs

    Artefact: Your-Needs-Map

  4. Financing

    Artefact: No artefact

  5. Let’s go

    Artefact: Readiness decision

  6. International

    Artefact: Guidebook handed to the lawyers

  7. Model Bylaws

    Artefact: Adapted articles of association

  8. Communication

    Artefact: No artefact

Facets and phases of the Swiss version

FactSource F7

  1. Phase 1

    Build understanding

    • Fundamentals
  2. Phase 2

    Address the basics

    • Motivation and vision
    • Stakeholders and needs
    • Context
    • Financing
  3. Phase 3

    Design the ownership concept

    • Votes (formal power)
    • Profits (monetary claims)
    • Legal anchoring
  4. Phase 4

    Communicate

    • Communication
    • Terminology

Aligned financing

FactSource F12

DimensionConventionalAligned with steward ownership
GovernanceCapital buys votesThe investor is a partner, not an owner
LiquidityExit by sale or IPOStructured redemption
ReturnAs high as possibleAppropriate to the risk, with a cap

The template’s ten myths

FactSource F1

What steward ownership is not. Ten misconceptions that the template dispels before any design begins.

  1. Myth 01

    It locks in an exact, unchangeable purpose.

  2. Myth 02

    It guarantees a sustainable purpose.

  3. Myth 03

    It is employee ownership or community ownership.

  4. Myth 04

    The company belongs to no one.

  5. Myth 05

    The company belongs to all employees.

  6. Myth 06

    It only works for companies with a social purpose.

  7. Myth 07

    It rules out investors and venture capital.

  8. Myth 08

    It rules out compensating founders for their risk.

  9. Myth 09

    It automatically makes the company “good”.

  10. Myth 10

    It automatically solves succession.

Steps before the memo

The memo is the sixth step of a journey. Before it come motivation, understanding, diagnosis, concept and a readiness decision.

Step 1 of 6

Motivation Soul Searching

Goal
Find out whether the model makes sense for the owners
Actions
Individual reflection, then team exchange, then review
Output
Written answers and a comparison of convergences and divergences Source F8

Step 2 of 6

Understanding

Goal
Establish a shared grasp of the concepts
Actions
Readings, case studies, myths, workshops
Output
A shared base; in the LAB, 2 workshops and a baseline Source F9Source F16

Step 3 of 6

Diagnosis Stakeholders and context

Goal
Map the situation, the needs and who decides
Actions
Interviews, document analysis, appointment of the decision-makers
Output
Needs Map; in the LAB, Tensions Map and Readiness Source F7Source F9Source F16

Step 4 of 6

Ownership concept

Goal
Make the principles concrete
Actions
Decide votes, profits, compensation, succession, financing
Output
Ownership concept; in the LAB, Statement of Intent Source F3Source F5Source F16

Step 5 of 6

Readiness

Goal
Proceed now or later
Actions
Readiness check
Output
Decision Source F9

Step 6 of 6

Memo

Goal
Consolidate
Actions
Drafting and validation
Output
FOM

Afterwards: legal implementation and communication. A minimum of four months even in simple cases; phases are not linear Source F5.

Soul Searching questions Source F8
  1. Image of the company.
  2. Hopes for 5, 10, 15 and 100 years’ time, and the worst-case scenario.
  3. Personal motivation.
  4. Why steward ownership.
  5. Fears and internal conflicts.
  6. Relevant stakeholders.

Do’s and Don’ts

What sustains a good memo and what hollows it out.

Do

  • Define the design criteria before the structure and test the structure against them Source F1.

  • Mark each rule as binding or aspiration Source F1.

  • Cover exclusion, red lines and the scenario of the simultaneous death of all stewards Source F1.

  • Treat the remuneration of stewards and of guardians separately Source F1.

  • Explain the reasoning behind founder compensation, not just the figure Source F1.

  • Address investor liquidity and the destination of value on liquidation Source F11.

  • Record individual answers before consolidating; bring differences into the open Source F8.

  • Accept “not now” as a legitimate outcome Source F5.

  • Write for non-specialists: the memo is also a basis for communication Source F2.

  • Ground the structure in a comparable case and say where the analogy fails Source F16.

Don’t

  • Start from the legal vehicle Source F4.

  • Hand over the skeleton with standard text and empty sections: the Introduction, criteria and investor rights are where the memo stops being generic (inference from Source F1).

  • Let the fundamentals dominate the document (inference).

  • Rely on a shareholders’ agreement alone for protection; the Guidebook prefers the articles of association. Validate under Brazilian law Source F11.

  • Assume share classes are available or transpose models: the Guidebook appears to list Brazil among the countries that restrict certain types of share. The passage read was truncated; validate Source F11.

  • Treat a guardian model as steward ownership without showing that the veto is binding Source F14.

  • Imitate a legal opinion or invent legal provisions Source F16.

  • Ignore tax consequences Source F11.

  • Treat Soul Searching as a formality: processes stall when entrepreneurs are not connected to their own needs Source F8.

What it resembles but is not

Fourteen documents that are mistaken for a FOM, and why none of them replaces it. Our own analysis, unless indicated.

Inference

14 / 14

  • Articles of association, company constitution, model bylaws

    A binding instrument; it is the memo’s destination.

  • Shareholders’ agreement

    Binds the parties; the memo declares intentions.

  • Term sheet

    Negotiates a transaction with an investor.

  • Investment memo

    Written to help the investor decide.

  • Legal opinion

    Opines on legality; comes afterwards, signed by a lawyer.

  • Family protocol

    Governs the family and normally preserves inheritance of control.

  • Purpose statement, manifesto

    Does not touch voting and profit rights.

  • Succession plan

    Deals with who leads, not with who owns.

  • Soul Searching, Needs Map

    Inputs to the memo.

  • Diagnostic report

    Describes the present.

  • Statement of Intent (LAB)

    Decides the what and the why; the memo designs the how.

  • Case study

    Retrospective and public.

  • B Corp certification

    Third-party certification, not an ownership model Source F15.

  • Blank memo skeleton

    It is a template, not a memo.

Models that are mistaken for steward ownership: the cooperative and the benefit corporation overlap in part, but no form replicates the two principles by default; employee ownership is a distinct concept Source F15.

Reference examples

Where to look to calibrate structure, granularity and language.

  1. Purpose Consulting template (client version)

    The only complete structure available; it comes directly from the Purpose network. Limit: it is a skeleton, without answers Source F1.

  2. Anonymised extract from a real memo

    Shows the granularity of a completed stewards section: role, votes, qualities, composition, minimum qualifications, removal Source F6.

  3. Purpose Schweiz template

    Access by email sign-up; not yet obtained Source F2.

  4. Articles of association of soulbottles and Neue Narrative

    They show how intention becomes a clause Source F6.

  5. Toolkit case studies, by section

    Goldeimer (structure), Ecosia (veto-share), Wildplastic (compensation), Buurtzorg (succession), Sharetribe (golden share and financing), EcorNaturaSì (foundation), Firebrand (trust) Source F9.

  6. LAB SO—BR template

    The only one adapted to Brazil Source F16.

Open points

What we do not yet know. An honest knowledge base also records its gaps.

Open

  • Obtain a completed Purpose memo, even if anonymised, to calibrate depth.

  • Obtain the Purpose Schweiz template and compare it with Purpose Consulting’s.

  • Read the two documents linked in the template: comparison with other models and myths (Google Docs).

  • Read the Brazil section of “Status of Steward-Ownership Worldwide”.

  • Read the Needs Map and “Ready to begin the formal process?” from the Toolkit.

  • Confirm with Purpose whether the template’s Guardians Entity corresponds to the guardian model or to a robust veto entity, and what the equivalent Brazilian vehicle is.

  • Legally validate the restriction on share classes in Brazil.

  • Settle the question of authorship (see “What it is”).

  • Check whether We Are Stewards uses an equivalent document.

Inspiration, connection and transition in practice

Every transition begins with a conversation

We are SO—BR, your point of contact in Brasil for exploring and starting your steward ownership journey. If your company is thinking about how to grow and endure without giving up what truly matters, let’s talk.

Talk to SO—BR