I think ultimately a company creates and maintains a culture, regardless of the legal structure. Maintaining a good culture requires effort and especially a sensible, trusting image of humanity.
When we talk about the crass gap in compensation and power between workers and owners or executives, then we often hear the excuse that much of the compensation at the top is from stocks (even though that is a very incomplete picture). The big bosses can't just sell their stock to increase wages is the narrative, but they _could_ pay some of that stock as additional compensation.
A single worker doesn't move the statistical needle in a very large corporation? For one, the same fallacy comes up with voting. Secondly: This notion that people are rational robots who only optimize their profits and then also calculate the statistical impact of every of their actions is not just too theoretical, it's just wrong. Loyalty, trust and engagement are things you earn and maintain. A generous compensation (including stocks) can be a part of that.
An additional approach is to decentralize and enable partial ownership of franchises. Now suddenly the needle can be moved, day by day and year by year.
But again, the legal structure is just part of it all. I think it starts with the image of humanity, the culture and a long term strategy that incorporates all participants of a company. The details fall into place after that.
