The panel generally agrees that while well-managed companies can create value for stakeholders alongside profits, the 'stakeholder capitalism' thesis may not scale broadly due to structural challenges and market pressures.
Risk: The risk that the 'stakeholder capitalism' model may not be sustainable for most companies during economic downturns or periods of high interest rates, leading to a legitimacy crisis.
Opportunity: The opportunity for well-managed companies with strong operational moats to sustain stakeholder models and differentiate themselves in a higher-rate environment.
This analysis is generated by the StockScreener pipeline — four leading LLMs (Claude, GPT, Gemini, Grok) receive identical prompts with built-in anti-hallucination guards. Read methodology →
Americans are losing faith in capitalism. The problem isn’t capitalism
Ravi Dhar, Jon Iwata
6 min read
The Problem Isn't Capitalism.
Gallup tracking data shows that positive views of capitalism have slipped to 54%, marking a 15-year low since they began tracking the metric. The finding reflects a zero-sum view of the corporation: that companies prosper …
Read more
Americans are losing faith in capitalism. The problem isn’t capitalism
Ravi Dhar, Jon Iwata
6 min read
The Problem Isn't Capitalism.
Gallup tracking data shows that positive views of capitalism have slipped to 54%, marking a 15-year low since they began tracking the metric. 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 we have 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 us 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. The problem isn't ideology. It's know-how. Three examples show what that know-how looks like in practice.
1. Design the enterprise around the interdependencies that create value.
When Doug McMillon became Walmart's CEO in 2014, U.S. comparable-store sales were in decline, customer satisfaction had deteriorated, and the company was losing ground to Amazon. Employee turnover was high. Walmart's reputation as an employer was turning away some potential customers and contributing to community resistance to new stores. Its shares had made little progress for years.
McMillon and his team concluded that Walmart's problems were connected, so the response had to be, too. E-commerce would draw on its strength in grocery and its store network, which required stores customers wanted to visit and engaged, capable employees. Technology would support omnichannel commerce while improving forecasting, inventory and store operations. Productivity and closer supplier coordination would help sustain the lower prices on which customer trust depended.
That approach required billions of dollars of multi-year investments in employees, lower prices, e-commerce and technology, sacrificing near-term profits. When Walmart disclosed in 2015 how much these investments would depress earnings, its shares fell about 10% in a single day, wiping out more than $20 billion in market value.
Despite the market backlash, McMillon and his team stayed the course—and the payoff proved substantial. In February 2026, Walmart became the first traditional retailer to exceed $1 trillion in market value. Comparable-store sales, which had been falling, recovered and then compounded. In 2024, Walmart appeared for the first time on Fortune's list of the 100 Best Companies to Work For.
McMillon later described the management approach: "Over time, designing a business that benefits all stakeholders is the best way to provide returns to shareholders." The important word is "designing." Employee, customer and shareholder value do not become mutually reinforcing because management declares them so. The enterprise has to be designed that way.
2. Test management decisions against the value they create—and for whom.
Starbucks illustrates how seemingly rational decisions compound into value extraction. Charging 60 to 80 cents for non-dairy milk generated revenue. Removing amenities cut costs. An expanded menu and mobile business offered more choice and convenience. Each decision could be defended on its own. Together, however, they improved particular measures of performance while degrading the customer experience and making baristas' work more complex and burdensome.
When Brian Niccol became CEO in September 2024, he saw these choices as symptoms of a company that had drifted from what made it distinctive, so he reversed course. Starbucks restored condiment bars, ceramic mugs and comfortable seating, and eliminated the non-dairy surcharge, even as customization had grown into a business generating more than $1 billion annually. The surcharge change alone reduced North American operating margin by about 60 basis points in its first quarter—a meaningful near-term financial cost.
But Niccol's changes were not limited to the customer experience. Starbucks cut roughly 30% of its menu, simplified store operations and invested $500 million in additional labor and staffing. These changes created value for employees by making their work simpler and more manageable, while making it easier for them to create value for customers.
The early results are encouraging. Starbucks has reported four consecutive quarters of comparable-sales growth, with global comparable sales up 7.9% in its latest quarter. Since Niccol took charge, its shares have risen more than 22%.
3. Manage intangible sources of value with the same rigor as tangible ones.
Mining companies are expert at managing physical assets—ore bodies, heavy machinery, railways and ports. But their ability to create value from those assets also depends on something that never appears on the balance sheet: social license to operate.
In 2020, Rio Tinto blasted the 46,000-year-old Juukan Gorge rock shelters in Australia. The action was legal, but the backlash exposed how much the company had put at risk. Traditional Owners lost trust in Rio, governments launched inquiries and reconsidered heritage protections, and institutional investors challenged the company's management and governance. The scrutiny extended to the agreements governing Rio's access to and development of Indigenous lands. The reputational fallout ultimately forced the exit of three senior executives, including the CEO.
As the new CEO, Jakob Stausholm treated rebuilding trust as a capability problem. Rio invested in community engagement, cultural-heritage expertise and the governance that supports both. Over the five years through 2025, Rio generated a 66% total shareholder return. Sustaining that kind of value creation requires managing not only the assets on its balance sheet, but the intangible capabilities that allow those assets to be developed.
The lesson extends well beyond mining. The rapid expansion of AI data centers is a timely example of how community concerns can affect a company's ability to grow. Customer trust and workplace culture are different kinds of intangibles, but they too can affect a company's ability to create value.
Taken together, these examples show that the "and" is not simply an aspiration; it's a management discipline. Walmart, Starbucks and Rio Tinto still have to manage costs, grow profits and deliver returns to shareholders. What distinguishes them is not how they distribute value, but how they create it.
Whether the public experiences capitalism as value creation or value extraction depends in no small measure on how companies are led. Declining confidence in capitalism is, therefore, a challenge to the practice of management. The know-how exists, but it remains uncommon. The task now is to make it a core management capability. That may be the most convincing answer business leaders can offer a public losing faith in capitalism.
The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.
AI Talk Show
Four leading AI models discuss this article
Opening Takes
“Disciplined stakeholder-centric execution can unlock sustainable value and lift long-run equity returns, but only if firms credibly translate interdependent value creation into scalable management practices amid favorable macro conditions.”
The article reframes the debate: the erosion in faith is less about capitalism and more about whether firms can manage interdependent value creation (customers, employees, communities) alongside profits. It highlights Walmart, Starbucks, and Rio Tinto as proof that 'the and' can work. That is a useful critique of short-term, zero-sum thinking. But the strongest countercase is structural: even with better management, public trust may erode if wages, inflation, or job security stagnate; policy shifts or tax changes can erase gains; and not all sectors can monetize intangibles or justify higher multiples during downturns. The sentiment data is not a market signal.
Sentiment can stay depressed even if firms improve governance; market pricing may ignore 'and' benefits if near-term earnings disappoint, and policymakers might impose constraints that blunt a stakeholder approach.
“The transition to stakeholder-centric management creates a 'valuation valley' where margin compression and high CAPEX requirements often precede the long-term compounding benefits.”
The authors frame the 'crisis of capitalism' as a failure of management competence rather than a structural flaw. While WMT and SBUX provide compelling case studies, the article glosses over the 'c-suite tax'—the massive short-term valuation hits required to pivot. Stakeholder capitalism is often a luxury of dominant incumbents with deep moats. For smaller firms or those in hyper-competitive, low-margin sectors, the 'know-how' the authors advocate can look indistinguishable from capital destruction. Investors should be wary: while long-term value creation is the goal, the transition period often involves margin compression that the market—and activist investors—historically punish with extreme volatility.
If stakeholder capitalism were truly a superior competitive strategy, market forces would have already selected for it; the fact that it requires 'teaching' suggests it is often inefficient or secondary to pure profit maximization.
“The article mistakes operational excellence at large-cap firms for evidence that capitalism's crisis is a management problem rather than a structural one.”
This article conflates management discipline with capitalism's legitimacy—a sleight of hand. Yes, Walmart and Starbucks improved returns by designing for stakeholder value. But the article cherry-picks winners and ignores survivorship bias: most companies that sacrifice near-term profits don't recover. Walmart's $20B market-cap hit in 2015 could have been permanent; we're reading about it because it worked. The 54% approval rating for capitalism reflects real wage stagnation, healthcare costs, and wealth concentration—none of which better management practices alone solve. Rio Tinto's 66% return required a catastrophic PR failure first. These are tactical fixes, not systemic answers.
If management discipline genuinely unlocks long-term value creation, then capitalism's legitimacy crisis is solvable without structural reform—which is precisely what the business establishment wants to hear, making this article's framing suspiciously convenient.
“The know-how gap is real but unlikely to reverse broad faith erosion without addressing structural inequality the article downplays.”
The article argues declining faith in capitalism (Gallup: 54% positive views) stems from poor management execution rather than the system itself, citing Walmart (WMT), Starbucks (SBUX), and Rio Tinto (RIO) as proof that designing for stakeholder interdependencies delivers superior long-term returns. Yet it glosses over selection bias in CEO examples and the fact that these turnarounds required multi-year earnings sacrifices that triggered immediate 10%+ share drops. Missing context includes whether such know-how scales beyond these outliers or survives recessions when short-term pressures dominate. Broader trust erosion may also tie more to wage stagnation than corporate design flaws.
These cases could be survivorship bias; most firms attempting similar multi-year investments fail to recover market value, leaving shareholders worse off without the 'and' payoff materializing.
The Debate
Responding to Grok
“Even conceding survivorship bias, stakeholder-driven turnarounds are not scalable bets for most firms; without durable near-term cash-flow gains or policy anchors, the market will not re-rate, and the 'and' thesis risks fading in a downturn.”
Focusing on Grok's survivorship bias, the flaw isn't only that winners exist but that scalability matters. Even conceding that a few turnarounds prove the model, most firms lack the moat to sustain stakeholder-led gains through a downturn. Markets demand near-term cash flow improvements or clear policy anchors; without those, sentiment fades and multiples compress—so the 'and' thesis risks not scaling beyond outliers.
Responding to Claude
“The viability of stakeholder capitalism is inversely correlated with the cost of capital, making it a cyclical luxury rather than a permanent management upgrade.”
Claude is right to flag the 'convenient' framing, but the panel is missing the macro-monetary catalyst. Stakeholder capitalism is essentially a 'quality' factor trade that thrives only when the cost of capital is low. In a higher-for-longer rate environment, the discount rate applied to those 'long-term' stakeholder benefits rises, making the upfront margin compression Gemini mentioned mathematically harder to justify. This isn't just a management failure; it's a structural mismatch between long-term ESG goals and short-term debt servicing costs.
Responding to Gemini
“Rising rates don't kill stakeholder capitalism; they expose which firms actually have durable moats versus which were just benefiting from cheap capital.”
Gemini's rate environment point is sharp, but it inverts causality. Stakeholder capitalism didn't emerge because rates were low—it emerged because *low rates masked execution failures*. Now that capital is expensive, firms with genuine operational moats (WMT's supply chain, SBUX's brand) can sustain stakeholder models; those without will fail faster. The real test isn't whether the thesis scales—it's whether we're confusing cyclical tailwinds with structural competitive advantage. Higher rates actually sort signal from noise.
Responding to Claude
“Higher rates lengthen payback horizons on stakeholder bets, making even proven operators face repeated valuation hits that erode broad adoption.”
Claude's claim that higher rates will cleanly separate genuine moats from noise ignores how elevated discount rates extend payback periods on stakeholder investments beyond what even WMT-scale balance sheets can credibly fund without earnings dilution. The 2015 Walmart episode already showed a 10%+ drawdown during the transition; repeat that across a broader set of firms and the legitimacy crisis deepens rather than resolves, as markets price the interim cash-flow gap first.
Panel Verdict
NEUTRAL No ConsensusThe panel generally agrees that while well-managed companies can create value for stakeholders alongside profits, the 'stakeholder capitalism' thesis may not scale broadly due to structural challenges and market pressures.
The opportunity for well-managed companies with strong operational moats to sustain stakeholder models and differentiate themselves in a higher-rate environment.
The risk that the 'stakeholder capitalism' model may not be sustainable for most companies during economic downturns or periods of high interest rates, leading to a legitimacy crisis.
This is not financial advice. Always do your own research.