The 20th-century view of shareholder primacy is flawed. By focusing first on creating wins for all stakeholders—customers, employees, suppliers, and society—companies build a sustainable, beloved enterprise that paradoxically delivers superior returns to shareholders in the long run.

Companies naturally deviate from their core values due to an unconscious influence called "financial gravity." This force alters behavior as leaders imagine what might please investors, leading to compromised decisions long before any direct pressure is applied.

Contrary to modern finance theory, companies owned by non-profit foundations demonstrate superior long-term financial performance, longevity (6x more likely to reach 50 years), and return on assets compared to conventionally structured, shareholder-first corporations.

Counterintuitively, companies with 'bad' governance ratings have financially outperformed those with 'good' ratings since 2008. This suggests that so-called 'best practices' often enforce short-termism, while 'bad' governance can actually protect a company's long-term, value-creating mission.

A noble mission statement, like Johnson & Johnson's famous credo, is powerless against the pressures of shareholder primacy. To be effective, a company's purpose must be structurally embedded in its corporate charter and governance, giving it legal and operational teeth.

The "best practice" of loading boards with independent directors is flawed because they often lack significant ownership. Their loyalty trends towards the norms of the broader financial system and their professional network, rather than the unique, long-term mission of the company they govern.

Public companies, beholden to quarterly earnings, often behave like "psychopaths," optimizing for short-term metrics at the expense of customer relationships. In contrast, founder-led or family-owned firms can invest in long-term customer value, leading to more sustainable success.

A study found that CEOs trained to prioritize shareholder value deliver short-term returns by suppressing employee pay. This practice drives away high-skilled workers and cripples the company's long-term outlook, all without evidence of actually increasing sales, productivity, or investment.

Data since 2008 shows that companies with so-called "bad governance"—often founder-controlled with less board independence—have, in aggregate, financially outperformed those following conventional "good governance" best practices, challenging the entire framework.