> it’s a SCOP (the majority of the capital of the company is owned by the employees)

On the other hand, I suspect that this also makes it more difficult for them to change and adapt.

Why? Most large corporations I’ve dealt with are highly bureaucratic and resistant to change. Good ideas get lost in silos or bogged down in bureaucracy. Whether it works or not seems entirely dependent on whether the company has a moat around their revenue stream, which allows them to be inefficient everywhere else.

For an employee owned co-op, a more anarchistic organization structure that allows for more employee control of everyday decisions could actually allow the company to adapt and change more easily. The ones making decisions have skin in the game, both as workers and owners.

	▲	mytailorisrich 27 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		If the employees have the power then decisions that are good for company but bad for the employees won't be made. Let's say that the company can't compete so the CEO proposes to automate production and lay-off 50%+ of the employees, do you think employees would vote in favour? In general coops are not good at tough decisions and innovation. Duralex already went bankrupt in 2008 and they are heading for it again. What's in the article is nice but it's charity not business so unfortunately I am not optimistic.