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.
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.
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.
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
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 structureCommunicate the transition to employees, customers and partners with a single version of the facts Source F2Source F5
Memo section that supports it: Fundamentals; general overviewJudge any future proposal (funding round, acquisition, change to the articles of association) against the design criteria Source F1
Memo section that supports it: Design criteriaKeep 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 needsDecide 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 needsNegotiate and justify their own compensation without an exit, with explicit reasoning Source F1
Memo section that supports it: Founder compensationDefine who succeeds them and by what criteria, rather than leaving it to inheritance or sale Source F1
Memo section that supports it: Stewards: qualification, successionTalk to the family about what will not be inherited, with a text in hand
Memo section that supports it: Criteria: sale, inheritance, successionSeparate 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 / aspirationTest 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 structureKnow exactly which rules go into the articles of association and which stay in internal documents Source F1
Memo section that supports it: Binding / aspirationChoose the legal vehicle from the requirements, and not the other way round Source F4Source F11
Memo section that supports it: Design criteriaSpot early the points with no precedent or with company-law, tax and succession risk
Memo section that supports it: Part B: legal pathwaysDraft 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 EntityCheck, 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 needsStructure funding rounds today without closing the door to a future transition Source F9Source F12
Memo section that supports it: Investors’ economic rightsUnderstand what they receive on becoming a steward: full responsibility, without owning the assets Source F1
Memo section that supports it: Stewards’ responsibilitiesUse another company’s memo as a list of questions for their own process
Memo section that supports it: Template structureAlign 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 EntityKnow 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 rightsAssess the risk of mission drift and of value extraction by the shareholders
Memo section that supports it: Use of profits; salary rulePrice and structure the right instrument: non-voting participation, mezzanine or debt Source F12
Memo section that supports it: Investors’ economic rightsNegotiate information and consultation rights compatible with the structure Source F14
Memo section that supports it: Votes for outsidersDecide 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’ responsibilitiesUnderstand the criteria for becoming a steward and plan their own path Source F1Source F6
Memo section that supports it: Stewards’ qualificationExplain the change to the team with confidence, including what does not change Source F2
Memo section that supports it: Fundamentals; mythsAlign pay and profit-sharing with what the memo defines
Memo section that supports it: Use of profitsTake 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
- 1IntroductionEmpty in the skeleton
- 2Fundamentals of Ownership and Steward-OwnershipStandard educational text
- 2.1What is (Corporate) Ownership?A bundle of rights: vote and profit; sale, inheritance, gift
- 2.2What is Steward-Ownership?Two principles; a third way between sale and inheritance; benefits
- 2.3Variations: stewards and voting rightsMap of voting power
- 2.4Common MisconceptionsTen myths
- 3Perspective, Stance, and NeedsThe company’s position
- 3.1Design CriteriaFour blocks: Power/Votes; Money; Sale, Inheritance, Succession; Governance
- 4Current Ownership StructureDescription and diagram
- 5Future Ownership StructureThe core of the memo
- 5.1General OverviewModel adopted and main rights
- 5.2Steward EntitySee questions by entity
- 5.3Guardians EntitySee questions by entity
- 5.4Founder CompensationReasoning and solution
- 5.5Investors Economic RightsEmpty in the skeleton
Questions by entity
| Question | Stewards | Guardians |
|---|---|---|
| Role and responsibilities | Yes | Yes (role; rights, responsibilities and duties) |
| Who the successors are | Yes | Yes |
| Composition of the group | Binding / aspiration | Binding / aspiration |
| Qualification | Binding / aspiration, plus “definition of a good steward” | Yes |
| Majority required to decide | Yes | Yes |
| Succession | Binding rules | Binding rules |
| Exclusion | Whether and how | Whether and how |
| Red lines (exceptional removal) | Yes | Yes |
| Simultaneous death of all members | Who elects the successors | Not covered |
| Remuneration | Yes | Yes |
| Use of profits | Yes (within the Steward Entity) | — |
The guardians hold a veto over changes to the aspects marked as binding Source F1.
Additional detail from public sources
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
- 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
A document in two parts: the company’s voice first, the analysis afterwards.
The company’s voice
Basis: Purpose template
Introduction
Why this memo, who took part, how to read it.
Fundamentals
Bundle of rights, two principles, variations, myths. Kept lean; the standard text can go in an annex.
Perspective and needs
Motivation, vision, tensions.
Design criteria
Power; Money; Sale, Inheritance and Succession; Governance.
Current structure
With a diagram.
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
Summary of the diagnosis
And the contradictions found.
Pathways explored
At least three, plus “not now”, and their trade-offs.
Test of the two principles
Does the structure deliver self-governance and protected purpose?
Three lenses
CEO, lawyer, CFO.
Legal pathways in Brazil
And points for legal validation.
Risks and next steps
Risks, open points, next steps with named people responsible.
Sources and annexes
Table of evidence.
The logic
The memo starts from needs and only then arrives at the legal form. The order matters.
The template’s guiding questions
Who decides and holds final control?
Who has access to value and profits, and why?
How are those rights distributed in the future?
Should the company be saleable?
Which rights should be heritable?
The template’s sequence
- Fundamentals
- Criteria
- Current structure
- 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.
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.
FactHub
Independent companies, flourishing economies, healthy societies Source F13.
FactTemplate
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
| Source | Principle 1 | Principle 2 |
|---|---|---|
| Purpose Consulting template Source F1 | Self-governance | Profit for purpose |
| Guidebook for Lawyers Source F11 | Self-governance | Profits serve purpose |
| Hub and financing material Source F12Source F13 | Self-determination | Purpose orientation |
| SO—BR | Autogoverno (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
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
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.
Legal models
-
Double foundation
- Mechanics
- Votes and economic rights in two entities
- Suited to
- Larger, profitable companies
-
Single foundation
- Mechanics
- One foundation, two classes, separate bodies
- Suited to
- Similar, at lower cost
-
Trust / Perpetual Purpose Trust
- Mechanics
- A trustee holds shares on behalf of a purpose
- Suited to
- Jurisdictions with trusts, especially the US
-
Veto-share / golden share
- Mechanics
- A shared foundation with a veto right
- Suited to
- Startups and SMEs
-
Guardian (veto-share light)
- Mechanics
- Veto held by one or more guardians (people or an entity)
- Suited to
- Very small companies
Swipe to see more
Toolkit stages
Soul Searching
Artefact: Soul Searching document
Understanding #1 and #2
Artefact: No artefact
Needs
Artefact: Your-Needs-Map
Financing
Artefact: No artefact
Let’s go
Artefact: Readiness decision
International
Artefact: Guidebook handed to the lawyers
Model Bylaws
Artefact: Adapted articles of association
Communication
Artefact: No artefact
Facets and phases of the Swiss version
Phase 1
Build understanding
- Fundamentals
Phase 2
Address the basics
- Motivation and vision
- Stakeholders and needs
- Context
- Financing
Phase 3
Design the ownership concept
- Votes (formal power)
- Profits (monetary claims)
- Legal anchoring
Phase 4
Communicate
- Communication
- Terminology
Aligned financing
| Dimension | Conventional | Aligned with steward ownership |
|---|---|---|
| Governance | Capital buys votes | The investor is a partner, not an owner |
| Liquidity | Exit by sale or IPO | Structured redemption |
| Return | As high as possible | Appropriate to the risk, with a cap |
The template’s ten myths
What steward ownership is not. Ten misconceptions that the template dispels before any design begins.
- Myth 01
It locks in an exact, unchangeable purpose.
- Myth 02
It guarantees a sustainable purpose.
- Myth 03
It is employee ownership or community ownership.
- Myth 04
The company belongs to no one.
- Myth 05
The company belongs to all employees.
- Myth 06
It only works for companies with a social purpose.
- Myth 07
It rules out investors and venture capital.
- Myth 08
It rules out compensating founders for their risk.
- Myth 09
It automatically makes the company “good”.
- 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 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
- Image of the company.
- Hopes for 5, 10, 15 and 100 years’ time, and the worst-case scenario.
- Personal motivation.
- Why steward ownership.
- Fears and internal conflicts.
- 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.
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.
No document matches your search.
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.
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.
Anonymised extract from a real memo
Shows the granularity of a completed stewards section: role, votes, qualities, composition, minimum qualifications, removal Source F6.
Purpose Schweiz template
Access by email sign-up; not yet obtained Source F2.
Articles of association of soulbottles and Neue Narrative
They show how intention becomes a clause Source F6.
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.
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.
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.
Sources
Sixteen numbered sources. The references throughout the text bring you here.
- F1Purpose Consulting, Future Ownership Memorandum template (skeleton). Client material, confidential.
- F2Purpose Schweiz, Ownership Memo (opens in a new tab)
- F3Purpose Schweiz, Handbuch Steward-Ownership (opens in a new tab)
- F4Purpose Schweiz, Rechtliche Verankerung (opens in a new tab)
- F5Purpose Schweiz, Beratung (opens in a new tab)
- F6Purpose Schweiz, Beispiele zur Definition der Steward Owners (opens in a new tab)
- F7Purpose Schweiz, Independently to Steward Ownership (opens in a new tab)
- F8Purpose Schweiz, Your attitude towards companies (opens in a new tab)
- F9Purpose Foundation, Toolkit for Steward-Ownership (opens in a new tab)
- F10Purpose Foundation, Toolkit page (opens in a new tab)
- F11Purpose Foundation, A Short Guidebook to Legal Frameworks (opens in a new tab)
- F12Purpose Foundation, Steward-Ownership Aligned Financing (opens in a new tab)
- F13steward-ownership.com, What is steward ownership (opens in a new tab)
- F14steward-ownership.com, Implementation (opens in a new tab)
- F15steward-ownership.com, Comparisons with other models (opens in a new tab)
- F16LAB SO—BR, journey methodology and Future Ownership Memo template (internal method).
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.