Shared Ownership in America: Lessons from Colorado’s Employee-Owned Ecosystem
The future of shared ownership is at a pivotal moment across the United States. Over the next decade, tens of thousands of business owners are expected to retire, affecting hundreds of thousands of workers and billions in annual revenue. Traditionally, business succession has offered two options: close the company or sell, often to private equity. Increasingly, policymakers and advocates are proposing a third option: selling to employees and transitioning to shared ownership.
While this study focuses on Colorado—where House Bill 24-1157 established the Colorado Employee Ownership Office and created a $1.5 million annual tax credit program to expand shared ownership—the findings are relevant for shared ownership advocates, policymakers, and business leaders across the country. This research explores how different shared ownership models affect workers, identifies strategies to strengthen implementation, and highlights opportunities to expand awareness and impact nationwide.
The results aim to guide both short-term and long-term decision-making: optimizing investments in shared ownership programs today and informing approaches that remove barriers, normalize shared ownership as a viable business option, and expand wealth-building opportunities for employees everywhere.
Purpose and Audience
This research provides guidance not only for Colorado stakeholders but also for shared ownership advocates, policymakers, business leaders, and program administrators across the United States. It examines the benefits, challenges, and barriers that different shared ownership models present, and provides insights to improve policy, funding, and implementation strategies. Equally important, it amplifies the voices of employee-owners, whose perspectives are often underrepresented in national discussions about business succession and worker wealth.
What the research shows
While the study initially focused on financial outcomes across ESOPs, AES, and worker cooperatives, participants’ experiences revealed that cultural elements, job quality, and ecosystem-level factors are equally critical.
Economic Impacts by Ownership Model
ESOPs – Larger and more profitable, ESOPs tend to provide stronger financial benefits, but lower-ranking employees may see limited gains. See details on ESOPs here.
Worker Cooperatives – Cooperatives may offer fewer direct financial benefits but provide significant advantages in terms of agency, participation, and job quality. Administrative and governance challenges, however, can sometimes hinder overall business success. See details on worker cooperatives here.
Alternate Equity Structures (AES) – Often perceived more as investments or bonuses than true ownership, AES models have minimal impact on long-term financial security for employees.
Insights Across Models
find the primary findings and recommendations here
Each form of shared ownership serves a distinct purpose, balancing long-term wealth building, equitable financial distribution, and cultural transformation differently. Key recommendations emerging from the research include:
Reframe the narrative around shared ownership to make it more compelling, relatable, and grounded in employees’ real experiences.
Recognize cultural and job-quality dimensions often overlooked in favor of financial or structural outcomes.
Address inequities in current shared ownership norms and explore more inclusive models.
Strengthen support for worker cooperatives through accessible ecosystem strategies to increase scalability and sustainability.
Shared ownership is more than a financial tool—it’s a way to strengthen workplace culture, create good jobs, and transform our economy to create resilient local communities. While Colorado serves as a compelling example of how policy, programs, and business leaders can support shared ownership, the lessons from this study are relevant nationwide and for the entire employee ownership field. By elevating worker voices, this study illuminates the impacts of shared ownership and the barriers to its advancement to reveal promising paths for increasing awareness, enabling employee-owned businesses, and ensuring that the work of creating more owners does what it should—build wealth for more people and strong local economies.
Methodology and Framework
See more details about the study approach and participating companies here.
The study drew on interviews with 48 employee-owners from Colorado-based companies, including four ESOPs, three worker cooperatives, and two companies using alternative equity structures (AES). Most interviews were conducted via Zoom, with some in person. (Full interview guide here.)
I analyzed the interviews using a mixed human- and AI-assisted approach. Transcripts were first manually coded and analyzed using Delve, then processed through Notebook LM to identify additional patterns. This approach combined expert interpretation with AI-supported pattern recognition, producing a thorough understanding of the data.
Analysis focused on how different shared ownership models affect workers’ economic security, evaluated across six elements:
Quality jobs – positions that provide agency, dignity, and growth opportunities.
Wages – competitive pay sufficient to meet local cost-of-living standards.
Retirement – wealth-building and long-term financial security.
Benefits – including retirement savings, health insurance, and paid time off.
Job security – fostered through transparency about company health and employees’ roles.
Equity – fairness in pay and benefit distribution, including the gap between highest- and lowest-paid employees.
Case Study Selection
Companies were identified in partnership with the Rocky Mountain Employee Ownership Center, the Center for Community Wealth, and commissioners from Colorado’s Employee Ownership Commission. Due to the small number of worker cooperatives and AES companies in Colorado, the study does not represent an equal distribution of workers across ownership forms. Findings on AES models are preliminary and intended to provide early insights rather than definitive conclusions.