In a world of rapidly changing economic paradigms, corporate business models that once relied on established benchmarks and performance metrics are facing pressure to adapt. With traditional strategies such as liberalization, privatization, and globalization (the LPG model) under scrutiny, there is a growing call to rethink economic measurement tools and corporate governance standards. Even the financial industry’s staple benchmark, the London Interbank Offered Rate (Libor), has been retired, signaling the start of a broader re-evaluation of performance measurement both at macroeconomic and firm levels.

As companies grapple with these evolving economic foundations, many industry experts and economists argue that a shift in management ethos is also needed. Companies that focus narrowly on shareholder returns and short-term financial gains have often sacrificed operational integrity and quality in pursuit of ever-growing margins. But recent high-profile corporate challenges, particularly at Boeing and Starbucks, underscore the risks of this outdated approach and illustrate the potential benefits of prioritizing long-term stability and sustainable practices.

The Legacy of Short-Termism and Its Consequences

Over the past several decades, the rise of institutional investors and high-net-worth individuals with leveraged funds has led to a greater presence of shareholder representatives on corporate boards. These board members frequently measure CEO performance based on narrow metrics like gross margins, net margins, and market capitalization. The obsession with maximizing shareholder returns and achieving immediate financial results has often crowded out other critical aspects of business, such as quality control, safety, and employee well-being.

For Boeing and Starbucks, the consequences of short-term-focused strategies have been especially stark. Both companies, though operating in vastly different industries, have struggled under management strategies that prioritized quarterly financial gains at the expense of their foundational missions. Boeing, for instance, has been marred by safety concerns, including issues with its 737 Max aircraft and Starliner space capsule, while Starbucks has faced criticism for drifting from its community-focused roots.

Boeing’s emphasis on cost-cutting measures, particularly outsourcing to reduce labor and production expenses, has severely impacted product safety. The tragic crashes of two 737 Max planes in Indonesia and Ethiopia between 2018 and 2019, resulting in 350 deaths, revealed deep-seated flaws in Boeing’s MCAS (Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System) and underscored the dangers of prioritizing financial engineering over product reliability. Even after internal investigations highlighted the risks associated with MCAS, then-CEO Dennis Muilenburg publicly assured investors that the planes were “as safe as any airplane that has ever flown the skies,” showing how financial imperatives took precedence over transparency and safety.

A Growing Call for Performance Metrics Beyond Shareholder Value

As these issues have come to light, some industry leaders and policymakers are calling for new standards in corporate performance measurement. The ongoing introspection at Boeing and Starbucks exemplifies the broader trend of reassessing how corporate success is defined and evaluated. The narrowly focused, shareholder-centric model that has dominated corporate governance for decades may no longer be sufficient in a world where sustainability, transparency, and ethical management are increasingly important.

Economists have long debated the relevance of gross domestic product (GDP) as a measure of a country’s economic health, arguing that it fails to capture factors like income inequality, environmental sustainability, and quality of life. Similarly, business leaders are now beginning to question whether traditional corporate metrics—primarily focused on financial performance—truly reflect a company’s value to society. There is a growing sentiment that corporate success should also consider factors like employee satisfaction, environmental impact, and long-term resilience.

Revisiting the “Chainsaw Al” and “Neutron Jack” Legacy

The modern emphasis on shareholder returns has its roots in the corporate practices of leaders like “Chainsaw Al” Dunlap and Jack Welch, whose aggressive cost-cutting tactics became industry standards. In the 1990s, Dunlap famously laid off thousands of workers at Scott Paper, significantly boosting short-term profitability before selling the company to Kimberly-Clark. Welch, the CEO of General Electric from 1981 to 2001, similarly gained a reputation for his policy of cutting the bottom 10% of the workforce annually, earning him the moniker “Neutron Jack” for his ruthless focus on profit margins.

While these strategies were highly effective at improving stock performance in the short term, their impact on long-term corporate health has been questioned. Welch’s formula, in particular, became a template for maximizing shareholder value globally, yet it also contributed to job insecurity, high employee turnover, and in some cases, diminished product quality and corporate ethics. As stock markets rewarded companies with rising margins due to shrinking wage bills, the Welch model became accepted practice. However, its limitations have become increasingly apparent as companies struggle to balance profitability with ethical and operational responsibilities.

An Opportunity for Re-Evaluation in Business Schools

Given the current challenges, many experts believe that a re-evaluation of corporate governance standards and business education is necessary. Business schools, which have historically emphasized maximizing shareholder returns as a primary goal, may need to incorporate new paradigms that value long-term stability, ethical practices, and societal impact. The model of corporate governance that prioritizes shareholder value at the expense of other stakeholders is being questioned, as it often leads to unsustainable practices that harm employees, communities, and the environment.

This shift toward a more holistic approach to business management is gaining traction. Younger generations of managers and leaders are more likely to consider environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors in their decision-making processes. Companies that prioritize ethical labor practices, sustainable sourcing, and environmental responsibility are increasingly seen as attractive investments. As a result, many forward-thinking companies are reorienting their business models to account for these broader measures of success.

Boeing, Starbucks, and the Path Forward

At Boeing and Starbucks, recent management changes indicate an openness to revisiting the short-term-focused strategies that have proven harmful. Kelly Ortberg, CEO of Boeing, and Brian Niccol, CEO of Starbucks, have both acknowledged that their companies’ intense focus on delivering positive cash flows every quarter led them away from their core missions. For Boeing, this has meant prioritizing safety and quality over immediate financial gains; for Starbucks, it involves re-establishing its role as a “community coffeehouse” rather than merely a high-volume, profit-driven operation.

These examples signal a shift away from the shareholder-primacy model, as companies increasingly recognize the need to balance financial performance with other important metrics. The role of CEOs, traditionally defined by their ability to boost shareholder value, is evolving to include responsibilities that address long-term corporate resilience and social impact.

Moving Toward a Sustainable Corporate Model

As the LPG economic model comes under review, it’s a fitting time to reassess the prevailing corporate governance model as well. The ongoing re-evaluation of performance metrics within Boeing, Starbucks, and other corporations could mark the beginning of a larger transformation in business. This movement, fueled by changing investor priorities and a growing societal focus on corporate responsibility, encourages a more sustainable approach to management—one that aligns with broader economic changes and meets the demands of an increasingly informed and conscientious public.

If business schools, policymakers, and corporate leaders embrace this shift, the next generation of CEOs may lead with an ethos of balance, valuing long-term stability and stakeholder engagement over short-term gains. By rethinking performance metrics, companies may ultimately contribute to a more resilient, equitable, and sustainable economy. In this way, the re-evaluation of traditional standards and benchmarks could help foster a new corporate paradigm that benefits businesses, employees, and society alike.

Disclaimer: The thoughts and opinions stated in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views or positions of any entities represented and we recommend referring to more recent and reliable sources for up-to-date information.