If the legal structure enforces "social ownership" then a worker must report all his activity to a social body in order to check if any means of production have been used for profit in case it must be "shared" into social ownership.
Each worker should be their own judge of corruption in the social body. So even if corruption doesn't exist and appears to exist only for a worker, that worker should retain the option to reject joining the body.
Where "social ownership encompasses the various forms of ownership of the means of production for socialist economic systems. It encompasses public ownership, employee ownership, and citizen ownership of equity."
"What does it mean to socially own something?" I have a complete sub-tree on the definitions. "Social ownership" is right there. Definitions are exactly from Wikipedia descriptions which I figure is a fair source.
"Who is implementing social ownership?" Anyone. The points I raised are problems of protocols ( standards and processes) that are used to implement co-operation required to form any social body. So "the Who" is irrelevant as long as they're protocols are evident for transparent auditing.