[Xixi]

There's a little known alternative: Steward-ownership [1]. It's the kind of structure used by Novo Nordisk, Bosch or Patagonia.

LLM summary: "Steward-ownership is a model where a company’s control stays with long-term stewards (founders, employees, or a mission-aligned foundation) while profits are limited and the company cannot be sold for private gain. The goal is to protect the mission permanently."

The key, if I understand properly, is that these company cannot be sold (not even by the founders), so there is no "shareholder value" per se to maximize. It is also probably not a good way for founders to maximize their net worth, which is probably why it's not more popular...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steward-ownership

[panick21_]

One of the issues with founders is that they get really into one specific idea and sink the company, rather then to switch strategy.

[idiotsecant]

As opposed to shareholders, who ravenously seek to maximize short term profits and sink the company.

[pipodeclown]

Plenty of countries have corporate laws that are less shareholder focussed than those of america. In the Netherlands for example boards are obligated to take into account broader sets of interest such as employee in their decisions and this is enforceable in court.

[nikanj]

This model, unfortunately, often leads to a "well, we might as well spend the extra profits on executive benefits"-issue. Whenever you have money without oversight, you always face a moral hazard.

If the company makes a profit and there aren't shareholders there to keep the stewards in check, excesses can and do develop.

[franga2000]

I get the first point, but having shareholders doesn't solve that in any way. Shareholders would just give themselves payouts instead of letting the execs take everything as bonuses. And unlike the execs, whose bonuses could be limited by charter and who could be chosen on the basis of trust, shareholders are "whoever has the most money to throw around", so there's no mechanism to align them with company values.

So it's not perfect, but it sure as hell beats having shareholders.

[bux93]

It's not as if public companies don't overspend on executive compensation. I think one CEO recently asked for a trillion dollar compensation package?

[Xixi]

Steward-ownership is a philosophy more than an actual structure, my understanding is that each such company is in practice structured somewhat differently.

This article explains roughly how Patagonia is structured: https://medium.com/@purpose_network/the-patagonia-structure-...

For Patagonia a trust owns 100% of the voting rights, while a charity collects 100% of the dividends. I don't doubt that there are ways the structure could be subverted, but it's a far cry from "money without oversight".

Do you have examples of Steward-owned companies that ended up with "well, we might as well spend the extra profits on executive benefits"-issues?

(I personally think Steam should go in that direction, otherwise I'm afraid enshittification is unavoidable once Gabe Newell is no longer at the helm)

[graemep]

Shareholders are not an effective check in most cases. They are with private companies where individual shareholders have a lot at stake - its their money that is being wasted.

If they can just easily sell the shares they will do that instead.