The way membership organizations run meetings and elections has changed significantly in recent years.
Virtual and hybrid participation have become more established, technology has created new ways for members to take part, and regulation is evolving alongside them. But there isn't one global approach.
Rules vary depending on the market, the type of organization and, in many cases, the organization's own constitution or by-laws.
So while the detail matters, there is a bigger question for organizations to consider: Are members being given a genuine opportunity to participate?
As explored in The Rules Change. The Principle Doesn’t., the direction of travel isn't identical everywhere.
In the UK, electronic and hybrid options have been introduced for statutory trade union ballots.
In the US, there is no single federal standard governing member meetings, with requirements varying by state and organization type.
Canada permits electronic participation unless an organization's by-laws provide otherwise.
In the Netherlands, legislation enabling fully digital general meetings is expected to come into force on 1 January 2027.
Saudi Arabia has placed greater emphasis on governance and disclosure, while in Australia the rules around virtual participation focus on giving members a reasonable opportunity to participate rather than simply observe.
The details are different, but collectively they show why organizations need to understand both the rules that apply to them and what those rules mean in practice.
A member being able to log into a meeting doesn't necessarily mean they can properly take part.
Can they ask a question?
Can they contribute to the discussion?
Can they vote?
And can they do those things without being disadvantaged because they're joining remotely rather than sitting in the room?
These questions become increasingly important as organizations have more choice over how meetings are delivered.
A virtual or hybrid option can widen access, particularly for members who can't easily attend in person. But the technology and meeting design still need to give those members a meaningful way to participate.
It's easy for the conversation to become physical vs hybrid vs virtual. But there isn't necessarily one format that's right for every organization. Membership size, geography, demographics, constitutional requirements and the purpose of the meeting can all affect what works.
The more useful question is whether the chosen format gives members a fair opportunity to take part.
For some organizations, that could mean a physical meeting with electronic voting. For others, a hybrid meeting could allow members across a wide geographic area to participate without traveling. Others may be able to run meetings entirely online.
The format can change. The need for meaningful participation doesn't.
Participation isn't only about getting into the meeting. Members also need confidence in what happens when they cast a vote.
Was the right person able to vote? Was their vote received? Could somebody vote twice? Is their vote private? And can the final result be verified?
These are important questions regardless of whether voting happens in a room, remotely or across both.
A trusted process needs to consider the whole journey, from authentication through to the final count.
As regulation and meeting formats continue to evolve, organizations should look beyond simply asking “what are we allowed to do?”
They should also consider:
Regulation sets the framework. The experience members have within that framework is something organizations can actively shape.
There will continue to be differences between markets, and regulation will continue to evolve.
But whatever format an organization uses, members should have a genuine opportunity to participate and confidence in the process. That is the principle that matters.
The Rules Change. The Principle Doesn’t. explores how member meetings and elections are evolving across six markets, what members increasingly expect and the principles behind accessible, trusted participation.