Skip to content

9 July, 2025

  • Saved Articles
  • My Account
  • Subscribe
  • Log In
  • Log Out

Board Agenda

  • Governance
  • Strategy
  • Risk
  • Ethics
  • News
  • Insight
    • Categories

      • View all
      • Governance
      • Strategy
      • Risk
      • Ethics
      • Board Expertise
      • finance
      • Technology
    • EU sustainability

      Omnibus package must not undermine EU sustainability

      Now is the time for Europe to speed up green transition, rather than slow it...

    • high pay

      Pay gap transparency needs to be better

      It’s not unknown for a CEO to earn 500 times as much the median employee,...

    • executive pay

      Executive pay trends in 2025

      Opposition to remuneration reports has grown sharply, according to Georgeson’s analysis of voting outcomes in...

  • Comment
      • View all
    • EU sustainability

      Omnibus package must not undermine EU sustainability

      Now is the time for Europe to speed up green transition, rather than slow it...

    • high pay Pay gap transparency needs to be better

      It’s not unknown for a CEO to earn 500 times as much the median employee,...

    • future-proof governance levers How to future-proof your business

      For boards to bolster resilience and create value in a polycrisis, a combination of hard...

  • Interviews
      • View All Interviews
      • Podcasts
      • Webinars
    • UK Corporate Governance Code Board meetings ‘are not up to scratch’

      Nearly three-quarters of board members believe the board’s performance in meetings needs improvement, an expert...

    • financial sanctions Tariffs chaos drives boardroom focus on resilience

      Business leaders will prioritise the resilience of their organisations in the face of economic upheaval...

    • supply chain oversight Act now on supply chain oversight, boards warned

      Board directors need to critically engage with the business’s supply chain activity, a panel of...

  • Board Careers
  • Resource Centre
      • White Paper Downloads
      • Book Reviews
      • Board Advisory & Corporate Services
    • C-suite barometer: outlook 2025 – UK insights

      Forvis Mazars draws UK insights from its global study and looks at UK executives’ strategic...

    • Talent Management 2025 Mind Gym

      Talent Management in 2025

      From rethinking leadership to wrestling with AI, MindGym's report reveals the trends shaping talent strategies...

    • Korn Ferry CHRO 2025 (Copy)

      On The Highwire: Being a CHRO in 2025

      Korn Ferry surveyed 750 senior HR leaders (including 450 CHROs) to understand their key priorities...

  • Events
  • Search by topic
    • Governance
    • Strategy
    • Risk
    • Ethics
    • Regulation
    • ESG
    • Investor Relations
    • Careers
    • Board Expertise
    • finance
    • Technology

Imbalance of power: loyalty shares threaten ‘one share, one vote’

by Marion Plouhinec on July 26, 2019

The rise of loyalty shares—conferring multiple voting rights—is disrupting the principle of fair and equal treatment of all shareholders in Europe and beyond.

scales, balance

Image: Optimarc/Shutterstock

One share, one vote. It’s a compelling premise for corporate governance, but it is being eroded by developments around the world, including in Europe. At LGIM, we are actively working to push back for equality.

If you bought one share in a company that had issued 100 shares, you would reasonably expect to control 1% of the voting rights in that company. If you bought more shares, you would also hope that your voting rights would increase correspondingly.

This, however, is increasingly not the case across Europe. One reason for this is the rise of so-called loyalty shares, which generally give their holders double or multiple voting rights. Such mechanisms already exist in France, Italy and the Netherlands. Belgium also recently introduced legislation on loyalty voting shares, and now Spain is seeking to do same.

Loyalty shares effectively create an imbalance of power among shareholders and are therefore problematic for minority shareholders

There are several different ways to implement loyalty shares. In France, the 2014 Florange law facilitates the automatic award of double voting rights to shareholders who have held company shares for at least two years, unless the company and a two-thirds supermajority of shareholders are opposed (“opt-out”).

Italy has enacted a similar system, in which companies need the approval of two-thirds of shareholder votes to adopt loyalty shares in their articles of association (“opt-in”; with simple majority for six months after introduction of the law).

Overall, we find that they effectively create an imbalance of power among shareholders and are therefore problematic for minority shareholders.

Fair and equal treatment

LGIM supports the principle of “one share, one vote” whereby each investor is treated in an equitable manner. We believe this embeds the fair and equal treatment of all shareholders by allocating control in direct proportion to the level of economic interest and exposure to risk.

We support the International Corporate Governance Network’s recent push against the introduction of double voting rights legislation in Spain.

There are several lessons that we have learnt so far from the experiences of France and Italy. Firstly, double voting rights can reinforce the entrenchment of family and government holdings. Recent research on the French market highlights that “mandating double voting rights reinforces insiders’ entrenchment”. Similarly, in the Italian market “the adoption of tenured voting coupled with a tradition of ownership concentration sharply empowers controlling shareholders”. This is a key issue and appears even more problematic given that many companies in the concerned markets already tend to have significant government and family-owned shareholders.

Double voting rights can reinforce the entrenchment of family and government holdings

Awarding these long-term investors double voting rights allows them to reinforce their influence over companies through voting power without having to increase their shareholdings. This is at the expense of other long-term minority shareholders such as LGIM, who in general already find it difficult to weigh in conversations with companies with a significant family or government shareholder.

Secondly, loyalty shares do not necessarily mean more long-termism. One of the main reasons put forward by legislators in favour of double voting rights is the fear of short-termism in financial markets. Research on the French market would suggest that loyalty voting shares do not in fact lead to more loyal shareholders. It actually found there was no significant difference in the average holding periods between firms with loyalty voting shares and firms without before and after the Florange law.

Thirdly, the system is not rewarded by the market. Research also finds that the market reacts positively to successful opt-out votes when it comes to loyalty shares. Those who failed to reject double voting rights, on the other hand, tend to deter foreign ownership and, as a consequence, increase their cost of capital .

As a large and long-term investor, LGIM believes that the equal treatment of shareholders by allocating control of a company in proportion to their economic interest is vital for a well-functioning market. Voting rights are a fundamental characteristic of equity capital. They are the central mechanism through which shareholders exercise their ownership rights and underpin investor stewardship.

Loyalty shares further afield

The weakening of the “one share, one vote” principle is not limited to Europe. US tech companies, typically those with a founder-led culture, are a prime example. Snap Inc, for instance, does not grant any voting rights to its public shareholders. It is worth noting that Snap is not included in many popular equity indices; this is something that institutional investors, including LGIM, publicly advocated.

Nonetheless, we still observe that an increasing number of index providers are relaxing their rules to remain competitive and attract those companies who do not apply the “one share, one vote” principle, at the expense of minority shareholders. As a long-term investor who works to protect our clients’ interests, we will continue to push for one share, one vote.

Marion Plouhinec is a corporate governance analyst at LGIM.

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • LinkedIn
  • Mail

Related Posts

  • Dual-class shares have become 'dual-class stock lite'
    May 23, 2023
    London Stock Exchange, LSE

    A consultation is under way on dual-class share rules after changes in 2021 'unlikely to move the needle' on attracting new listings to London.

  • Companies protest delay in EU human rights due diligence legislation
    February 9, 2022
    EU flag

    Companies including Ikea, Danone and Aviva Investors have signed a letter calling on the EU to accelerate its work on human rights proposals.

  • NGOs challenge European Commission on delay to human rights law
    December 9, 2021
    European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen

    Amnesty International and Oxfam are among 47 NGOs that have written to European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen demanding progress.

  • World Economic Forum issues business guidance on human rights
    May 24, 2022
    World Economic Forum logo

    Launched this week at Davos, the WEF report contains five questions for boards to consider regarding their conduct towards stakeholders.

Search


Follow Us

Register Free

Stay in the know! Register to access the latest governance news; plus receive updates about our events and podcasts – Sign up here

 

Most Popular

Featured Resources

wef global risks 2025

The Global Risks Report 2025

The 20th edition of the Global Risks Report reveals an increasingly fractured global...
Supply chain management cover

Strategic Oversight in Supply Chain Management: A Guide for Corporate Boards 2025

Supply chains have become complex, interdependent and opaque and—according to research...
OB-Cyber-Security

Cyber Security: What Boards Need to Know

Maintaining firewalls, protecting servers and filtering malicious emails rarely make...

The IA’S Principles Of Remuneration 2024 2025

This guidance from the Investment Association is aimed at assisting remuneration...
Diligent 2024 leadership tech cover

Leadership, decision-making & the role of technology: Business survey 2024

This research report by Board Agenda and Diligent sheds light on how board directors...

Director Reference Guide: Navigating Conflict in the Boardroom

The 'Director Reference Guide' on navigating conflict in the boardroom provides practical...
Nasdaq 2024 governance report cover

Nasdaq 2024 Global Governance Pulse

This Nasdaq survey gathered data from more than 870 board members, executives, and...

Becoming a non-executive director (4th edition)

Board composition is the subject of much debate, while the role of the non-executive...
art & science brainloop new cover

The Art & Science of Creating an Effective Board

Boards are coming under more scrutiny and pressure than ever before from regulators,...
SAA First time NED guide

First Time Guide for Non-Executive Directors

The role of the non-executive director has never been more vital: to advise, support,...

Register Free

Stay in the know! Register to access the latest governance news; plus receive updates about our events and podcasts. Register


  • Editors & Contributors
  • Editorial Advisory Board
  • Board Advisory & Corporate Services
  • Media Marketing Solutions
  • Contact Us
  • About Us
  • Board Director Network
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookies
|

Copyright © 2025 Questor Media Group Ltd.

  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Sitemap