I think what would help with that is that we start not contrasting Bosch with tech, given that Bosch is a technology company in the most literal sense of that term. A lot of tolerance for these mistreatments comes from the mistaken illusion that 'tech' somehow requires people to act like megalomaniacs. A fair amount of car parts in Musk's very own car company come from Bosch

Absolutely agreed. But they're also an old school manufacturer as opposed to the more modern form of IP-focused tech company that tries as hard as possible not to be in the manufacturing game.

> I think what would help with that is that we start not contrasting Bosch with tech, given that Bosch is a technology company in the most literal sense of that term

Took the words out of my mouth.

Patagonia does the same.

Yes (and it represents ~2% of Bosch by revenue)

To be fair, foundation ownership is used more as a way to bypass estate taxes in German businesses [0] as a charitable foundation can continue to give 30% of it’s income to the family who founded the foundation. This is a common corporate structure for a number of other family run German companies (ThyssenKrupp, Aldi, Lidl, Bertelsmann, etc).

In American terms, it would be the equivalent of the Chan Zuckerberg Foundation owning 60-70% of Meta’s stock, and Zuckerburg’s children continuing to get dividends and a significant ownership stake in FB while also bypassing estate taxes.

[0] - https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=f1b666a8-1257...

The question I would ask - is that foundation just a tax haven for the family profits, or is it actually doing positive things (could also be both)? Same with Patagonia listed in a child comment - a lot of positive press came from the recent moves, but they were also incredibly self-serving for the family from a monetary point of view.

Both. Foundations allow HNW individuals to pass on large portfolios to descendants while also providing PR, Comms, and Political benefits to the family. (Note to Self - flesh out w/ source).