Deep-rooted structural factors in the current economic system are major obstacles to a more equitable model. Participants noted that prevailing financial and corporate practices prioritise short-term returns and shareholder value at the expense of workers, communities, and the environment. Traditional accounting and incentive structures largely undervalue human and natural capital, effectively treating social well-being and ecological health as externalities. This undervaluation incentivises exploitation – for example, cost-cutting that harms labour and the planet can go unchecked because such impacts don’t directly hit financial statements. An ideology of extreme financialisation has permeated business thinking, teaching that nearly every asset (from housing to water) should be marketised and integrated into global capital flows. This philosophy has destabilised both democracy and the economy, entrenching a system in which maximising financial metrics trumps broader societal considerations. Reversing these deep-seated norms – essentially de-financialising parts of the economy – is necessary to realign finance with public interest.

Another structural barrier discussed was the lack of accountability and voice for those most affected by economic decisions. Corporate and financial institutions often operate with insufficient accountability for their contributions to inequality. For instance, corporate boards and investors rarely treat socio-economic inequality as a material risk, unlike climate change, which has gained more traction in recent years. With shareholders and executives not held responsible for community and worker outcomes, gaps remain in ensuring that businesses contribute to broad-based prosperity. Additionally, ordinary citizens and workers have limited representation in key decision-making forums. For example, the decline of member-nominated trustees in pension funds means savers have little say in how their money is used. This structural lack of voice makes it harder to steer investments toward equitable ends. Tackling these entrenched barriers – from reorienting accounting standards to strengthening stakeholder accountability – is foundational to any alternative economic model.

2 / Issues with ESG and financial investment frameworks

Building on the structural critique, the roundtable discussed how ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) initiatives and current investment frameworks are falling short. Participants argued that many ESG efforts are too narrowly focused and miss the bigger picture of systemic impact. In practice, ESG tends to evaluate the behaviour of portfolio companies, but not the behaviour of investors themselves. As one attendee noted, an investment fund can tout a sustainable portfolio while its own allocation decisions might still be funnelling capital away from disadvantaged communities or neglecting worker welfare. Current frameworks pay insufficient attention to the impacts on workers and communities, and to how financial institutions could better support inclusive outcomes. In other words, ESG as commonly practiced often neglects the “S” – the social aspect – especially when it comes to issues like inequality and labour rights.

Furthermore, some pointed out that investors lack tools and incentives to account for long-term social risks. Compared to environmental issues, which have seen a surge of data and disclosure initiatives, social inequality is less understood and integrated into investment decisions. Participants observed that investors generally have a better grasp of climate and biodiversity risks than of inequality or wage stagnation risks. Part of the problem is the evidence gap and framework gap – there is a need for robust metrics and guidelines to encourage truly socially responsible investment over the long term. Some new initiatives are emerging (for example, taskforces to disclose impacts on inequality and nature), but these were seen as overly quantitative and not yet translating into real changes in financial accounting or capital allocation. Realigning these financial rules is critical: for instance, adjusting discount rates or return expectations to favour long-term inclusive investments.

3 / Scaling alternative models

Participants explored both the promise and the limitations of scaling alternative economic models, including SMEs, cooperatives, mutuals, and community-owned enterprises. These models were widely recognised for their potential to democratise economic power, build community resilience, and redistribute ownership.

Many small businesses already contribute to social value – often without adopting ESG labels – and have close ties to the places they serve. However, participants stressed the importance of recognising that the SME sector is highly diverse. A one-size-fits-all approach to regulation or funding could inadvertently privilege larger incumbents while sidelining smaller or more mission-driven players.

There was broad support for strengthening the ecosystem around co-ops and mutuals, including through recent policy commitments to grow the sector, support community asset ownership, and expand credit unions and building societies. Yet several contributors expressed scepticism that these models – at their current scale and institutional standing – could deliver the systemic transformation needed. While these approaches are necessary and should be expanded, they were seen by some as insufficient on their own. Instead, greater emphasis was placed on system-level reforms – such as worker representation on boards or governance changes to pension funds – that could more directly shift capital and decision-making at scale.

To move beyond isolated initiatives, participants agreed that scaling alternative models will require significant investment, long-term infrastructure, and narrative clarity. Compared to the climate movement, which has attracted substantial philanthropic capital behind a clear story of crisis and transition, the social economy lacks equivalent narrative coherence or funding.

Better coordination between philanthropists, impact investors, and government – especially around unrestricted and collaborative funding – was seen as essential to help these models grow beyond the pilot stage. Demonstrating successful examples, backed by clear evidence of economic and social returns, was highlighted as key to winning over sceptical audiences.

Importantly, participants emphasised the need to avoid insularity. Building broader coalitions – including moderate business leaders, right-leaning communities, and faith groups – was viewed as a vital strategy. Messaging should focus on shared values such as fairness, local pride, and autonomy, and steer clear of moral superiority or jargon-laden advocacy.

Ultimately, scaling up alternative models is not primarily a technical or financial challenge, but a political and cultural one. Without a compelling story that links these models to people’s material concerns and aspirations, even the most promising initiatives risk remaining marginal.

4 / Political and narrative challenges in building broad support

While policy ideas and alternative models abound, political will and public narrative were identified as major sticking points. Participants acknowledged that spreading wealth and power more equitably is a political project as much as an economic one, and it currently faces headwinds. In the UK context, it was noted that political leadership has shown limited appetite for radical economic change – for instance, Labour has not embraced the full agenda of wealth and power distribution. Trade unions, too, often concentrate on familiar ground (like collective bargaining) without pushing for deeper ownership or governance reforms. This lack of bold political championship means building a cross-party or nonpartisan coalition is crucial. Some attendees suggested identifying policy ideas that resonate across ideological lines – for example, promoting “good jobs” or fair pay is popular with voters of different parties. Indeed, research shared in the discussion showed that voters across the political spectrum support things like fair tax policies and responsible business behaviour (even if for varying reasons). Leveraging these overlaps can help craft an agenda that appeals beyond the progressive base.

The narrative challenge was another key issue: how to frame and communicate alternative economic ideas in ways that unite rather than divide. A prevailing sentiment was that the current government lacks a compelling story about the economy’s direction – there are piecemeal actions but “no clear worldview or narrative from No. 10,” as one person put it. To galvanise public support, participants argued the need for a clear, relatable narrative with defined adversaries and heroes. Populist movements (especially on the right) have been effective in creating a sense of “us vs. them,” often blaming elites or external groups for economic grievances. Some felt that reformers on the left/progressive side hesitate to single out “villains” in the economic system, preferring positive messages about opportunity. However, without identifying what or who needs changing – be it tax-dodging corporations, monopolistic utilities, or private equity – it can be hard to rally popular enthusiasm for reform. The group discussed framing ideas like “producers vs. predators” to contrast productive businesses against extractive actors.

Another narrative hurdle is internal to progressive circles: a tendency toward moral righteousness and a top-down tone that can alienate those who don’t already agree. Several participants advised approaching the public with humility and empathy rather than preaching. This includes listening to people’s real concerns (even those with different values or who might lean conservative) and acknowledging their experiences instead of immediately trying to “win” an argument. The discussion noted that right-wing movements often excel at giving people a sense of identity and belonging – tapping into emotional values like pride or security – whereas the left can get bogged down in internal debates and policy details. Overcoming this means crafting stories about the economy that speak to common values (security, dignity, fairness) and make abstract concepts tangible.

Participants also delved into the cultural and psychological factors that underpin economic behaviour and attitudes, recognising that technical solutions alone aren’t enough. One insight was about the prevailing mindset of scarcity and individualism in society. When people feel economically insecure or threatened, they are more likely to “look after number one,” caring less about collective goods like the National Health Service or inequality in general. For example, it was noted that many pensioners prioritise the returns on their pension investments over what those investments are funding – a reflection of how personal security concerns can outweigh social considerations. This scarcity mindset can be a barrier to reforms that require trust and solidarity. To counter it, the discussion highlighted the need for a cultural shift toward a broader notion of value. This means painting a picture of the future that isn’t about austerity or sacrifice but about shared prosperity. People need to believe that changes like higher taxes on wealth or new ownership models will ultimately improve their lives and security, not threaten them. Crafting an optimistic, abundance-based vision could help alleviate the psychological resistance to change.

5 / International examples and lessons

There was an explicit recognition that the challenges of inequality and populism are not unique to Britain, and that other countries have experimented with solutions from which to learn. One area of interest was how different capitalist models in Europe incorporate workers and stakeholders. For example, many European countries legally mandate worker representation on company boards – one speaker noted that in Denmark, any firm with over 30 employees must allow employees to elect a significant portion of the board. Such co-determination practices ensure worker voices are part of governance, and they were cited as a proven way to democratise the economy. The UK, by contrast, has no general requirement for worker directors and is seen as lagging on this front. The discussion implied that adopting similar measures could address some power imbalances in UK firms. Additionally, it was mentioned that Spain (via its Vice President’s office) is working on new legislation to democratize the economy, indicating a broader movement in other countries to which the UK could connect.

Another lesson came from looking at how nations measure success and well-being. Traditional metrics like GDP often fail to capture inequality or environmental health. The group highlighted international examples such as New Zealand’s incorporation of well-being indicators into its national budget, and Bhutan’s concept of Gross National Happiness. These cases show that it is possible to redefine what economic progress means at a government level. By measuring societal well-being and not just output, policymakers can shift the narrative toward quality of life, which supports the case for alternative models that prioritise people and planet. Such international best practices in measurement were seen as useful for guiding narrative development – essentially, providing evidence and language to communicate why new economic approaches lead to better outcomes.

The roundtable also noted that international movements and networks can provide support and inspiration. Concepts like the Doughnut Economics framework (pioneered in part by cities like Amsterdam) or community wealth-building (popularised by the “Preston model” in England, and inspired by examples from Cleveland, USA) were mentioned as part of a growing global toolkit. Participants felt that the UK should both learn from and contribute to these global conversations. However, they also cautioned that simply importing ideas isn’t straightforward – local context matters. For example, while the cooperative sector thrives in some European countries, scaling it in the UK requires grappling with unique political and cultural conditions. Nonetheless, the prevailing view was that looking outward can help overcome intellectual stagnation at home.

6 / Creating an enabling policy environment

Finally, the discussion zeroed in on concrete policy and regulatory levers that could turn ideas into reality. A variety of proposals were brought up, reflecting the multifaceted nature of the challenge. One important lever is corporate governance reform. Changing company law to mandate consideration of stakeholder interests (not just shareholder profits) was suggested as a way to embed social purpose into the corporate DNA. For instance, amending the UK Companies Act to require directors to act in the interest of employees, communities, and the environment – not solely shareholders – could drive more responsible business behaviour. Alongside this, participants stressed the need for complementary cultural change within business, because legal tweaks alone can be reversed or circumvented if the underlying business culture is resistant.

Another set of levers concerns the financial sector and investment rules. To empower savers and workers, the idea of reintroducing or strengthening mechanisms for employee and beneficiary voice in finance was raised. For example, restoring member-nominated trustees on pension fund boards or establishing forums for pension beneficiaries to express their investment preferences would make the finance industry more democratically accountable. Oversight of private capital also came up as urgent: the private equity industry’s rapid, often unregulated expansion is seen as undermining economic resilience and equality. Because private equity firms can load companies with debt and extract value while avoiding public disclosure, attendees argued for regulatory or tax measures to curb asset-stripping practices. Closing tax loopholes (such as those allowing excessive interest payments to wipe out taxable profits) and increasing transparency for private market transactions were proposed to prevent these actors from enriching themselves at the public’s expense.

Additionally, the group discussed policies to boost the social economy sector. Government can play a role by setting targets or duties for growth of cooperatives and community enterprises – for instance, the mentioned duty on regulators to promote credit unions and mutual financial institutions is one example already in motion. Legislation like a “Fair Banking Act” could ensure financial institutions serve social purposes and support community reinvestment. There was also enthusiasm for using public procurement and local government powers to favour worker-owned or community-based companies, thereby scaling demand for their services. On the flip side, policies ensuring large corporations pay their fair share (robust anti-tax-avoidance laws, fair tax accreditation incentives, etc.) would level the playing field for responsible businesses. In conclusion, a multifaceted policy agenda was sketched out: it spans corporate governance, financial regulation, support for alternative business models, and even the storytelling function of government. These levers, if pulled together, could create an enabling environment for alternative economic models to flourish and help address the legitimate grievances that fuel populism.