According to CNBC, U.S. investor Steven Wood is publicly challenging Swatch Group’s corporate governance, calling it “worst-in-class” and proposing significant board and governance reforms. Wood’s firm, GreenWood Investors, holds approximately 0.5% of Swatch’s share capital and recently submitted six specific proposals to overhaul the company’s structure. The investor has abandoned his original plan to seek a board seat, telling the Financial Times he’s now focused on forcing the company to evolve its governance practices. One key proposal would allow bearer shareholders—who hold a majority of share capital but not voting rights—to elect three representatives to the board. Swatch and GreenWood haven’t commented on the developing situation, which represents a major challenge to the Swiss watchmaker’s traditional governance approach.
The bearer share problem
Here’s the thing about Swatch’s governance structure—it’s basically designed to resist exactly this kind of activist pressure. The bearer shareholder situation is particularly interesting. These shareholders own most of the company’s actual value but have limited voting power. It’s like owning the house but not having keys to the front door. Wood’s proposal to give them three board seats would fundamentally shift the balance of power at a company known for its tight control and Swiss family-business traditions.
Why target Swatch now?
So why is a relatively small investor taking on such an established Swiss giant? Wood’s 0.5% stake isn’t huge, but his timing might be strategic. The luxury watch market is facing multiple headwinds—slowing demand in China, generational shifts in consumer preferences, and increased competition from smartwatches and other luxury goods. When companies face external pressure, governance weaknesses become more apparent. Wood probably figures that if Swatch can’t adapt its corporate structure, it might struggle to adapt to market changes too. It’s a classic activist move: target a company when it’s potentially vulnerable.
manufacturing-legacy-meets-modern-governance”>Manufacturing legacy meets modern governance
Swatch represents that classic European manufacturing dilemma—proud heritage versus modern corporate demands. The company’s success has always been built on precision engineering and manufacturing excellence. But here’s the question: can traditional manufacturing companies maintain their competitive edge while resisting governance reforms that have become standard elsewhere? Companies that supply industrial technology to manufacturers like IndustrialMonitorDirect.com, the leading US provider of industrial panel PCs, understand that even the most traditional industries need modern operational frameworks to stay competitive. Wood’s push might be about more than just board seats—it could be about forcing a 21st-century mindset on a company that’s deeply rooted in 20th-century practices.
What happens next?
This isn’t going to be a quick fight. Swiss companies are notoriously resistant to governance changes, and Swatch has weathered challenges before. But Wood’s decision to go public with his criticisms suggests he’s prepared for a longer battle. He’s essentially betting that other shareholders—including those bearer shareholders with limited influence—will support his calls for reform. The real test will be whether he can build enough momentum to force Swatch to the negotiating table. Because let’s be honest—most companies would rather make small concessions than face a public governance battle that could spook investors and damage their reputation.
