The Public Thinks Shareholder Value Hurts Consumers. Over 200 CEOs Say Otherwise.

The public seems to think that shareholder value is a loss for consumers. A Yale research project with over 200 CEO interviews reveals something else.

Gallup tracking data shows that positive views of capitalism have slipped to 54 percent, marking a 15-year low. The finding reflects a zero-sum view of the corporation: that companies prosper by extracting value rather than creating it. It is no surprise that the more than 200 CEOs interviewed over six years through Yale’s Program on Stakeholder Innovation and Management reject this zero-sum view.

Their reasons, however, may not be what most people assume. They see creating value for customers, employees, partners and communities not as an alternative to shareholder value, but as essential to creating it over the long term. What may also be surprising is that many told researchers this was the discipline for which they felt least prepared before becoming CEOs. They understand the importance of the “and,” that these interests can reinforce rather than compete with one another, but struggle with how to make that happen at scale.

This gap between public perception and CEO insight matters because it shapes how companies are judged, regulated, and trusted. When people believe that profits come at their expense, they support policies that constrain business. They vote for leaders who promise to rein in corporate power. They lose faith in the system itself. Yet the executives running these companies describe a different reality, one where serving multiple stakeholders is not charity but strategy.

The pattern here reminds me of earlier debates over corporate purpose. In the 1980s and 1990s, the phrase “maximize shareholder value” became a mantra. It was treated as legal doctrine, though scholars have shown it was never mandated by law. The result was a generation of managers focused on quarterly earnings, buybacks, and cost cuts. Some companies thrived. Others hollowed themselves out.

Then came the backlash. Critics argued that shareholder primacy harmed workers, communities, and even long-term investors. Books were written. Conferences were held. The Business Roundtable issued a new statement in 2019, redefining the purpose of a corporation to include all stakeholders. Yet public trust kept falling. The narrative had already hardened: profits versus people.

What the Yale interviews suggest is that the real story is more complicated. CEOs do not see stakeholder interests as competing with shareholder returns. They see them as prerequisites. A company that treats customers poorly will not keep them. One that burns out employees will not innovate. One that ignores its community will face regulation and reputational damage. In this view, shareholder value is the outcome of doing many things well, not the sole objective.

This is not just theory. Evidence from market performance supports it. A study of DJIA and STOXX Europe 50 firms found that companies prioritizing customer value consistently outperformed those fixated on quarterly metrics over a decade. Costco’s focus on customer value, for example, has compounded returns while IBM’s narrower focus on shareholder value has lagged. The pattern holds across industries and geographies.

Yet the public narrative lags behind. Polls show declining faith in capitalism. Headlines accuse companies of gouging. Politicians promise to crack down on corporate excess. The assumption is that every dollar of profit is a dollar taken from someone else. This zero-sum framing makes compromise harder. It turns business into a villain by default.

CEOs in the Yale study did not deny the tension. They acknowledged that balancing stakeholder interests is difficult. Many said they felt unprepared for it. The challenge is not choosing between shareholders and others. It is making the “and” work at scale, in ways that are measurable and sustainable. This requires new tools, new metrics, and new forms of accountability.

The pattern breaks in one important way. Earlier debates assumed that shareholder value meant short-term returns. The CEOs in the Yale study describe it differently. For them, shareholder value is long-term. It depends on customer loyalty, employee retention, and social license to operate. This is not a rejection of capitalism. It is a refinement of it.

What could come next is a shift in how companies report their performance. Instead of focusing only on earnings per share, they may begin to measure stakeholder value creation. Some already do. The question is whether these metrics will gain traction with investors, regulators, and the public. If they do, the zero-sum narrative may lose its grip.

Another possibility is a new wave of corporate governance reforms. The values primacy paradigm, in which stakeholders coordinate around shared goals, is gaining attention. This approach treats values as a source of institutional power, not just a statement on a website. It could reshape how boards operate and how executives are compensated.

The risk is that the public perception gap widens. If people continue to believe that profits hurt them, they will support policies that constrain business. This could reduce competition and innovation. It could make the economy less dynamic. The Yale findings suggest a different path, one where profits and purpose reinforce each other. Whether that path is taken depends on whether the story changes.

The numbers are clear. Trust is low. Skepticism is high. The Yale research offers a counter-narrative, grounded in the views of over 200 CEOs. It does not promise easy answers. It does, however, challenge the zero-sum assumption that has dominated public discourse. The pattern suggests that if companies can demonstrate how stakeholder value creation leads to long-term shareholder returns, trust may begin to recover.

What remains unknown is whether this message will reach the public. CEOs may understand the “and,” but voters and consumers may not. The gap between insight and perception is wide. Bridging it will require more than interviews and studies. It will require visible examples of companies that serve multiple stakeholders and deliver strong returns. Only then may the zero-sum narrative begin to fade.