A Mille-Feuille. That’s What Our World Looks Like.

More than ever, we see layers stacking up—proximities of things that are sometimes unexpected, even paradoxical. Among these, the most unsettling is the coexistence of great wealth and imminent disaster—within the same company, dazzling financial results can sit alongside severe externalities.

We have thus created—perhaps unwittingly—a system capable of generating remarkable economic performance and progress while also producing immense losses.

Defining the value produced by our activities has become an increasingly complex task, one that now clearly needs to be reframed. The indicators we have long relied upon no longer reflect the realities of our time; they obscure consequences that are now impossible to ignore. This notion of value has been both criticized and reimagined. New indicators are emerging, directly challenging the economic models that organizations operate within. And if the question of the model is crucial, it brings forth another paradox.

Why, despite this growing awareness and the belated attempts to address organizational toxicity, have mutualist and cooperative models not gained more prominence? These models have demonstrated their resilience through multiple crises, proving themselves to be a strong and viable alternative—not a marginal one—to conventional economic structures.

To question value is to realize that mutualism may have already answered some of these pressing concerns—quietly, perhaps, but effectively—for over a century. These lines seek to explore precisely that: the relevance of mutualist models in an era where the very definition of organizational performance is being redefined.

The King Is Naked—And the Context Is Now Clear: Organizations Must Transform. Fundamentally.

The signals are abundant, all pointing in the same direction. Three main forces are driving this shift.

The first comes from stakeholders, pressuring companies to evolve. Customers, employees, and the media environment are reshaping the role of businesses, expanding the perceived value of companies beyond financial returns. Expectations now include social utility, broader responsibility, and impact quality—expressed through a wide range of narratives: environmental sustainability, social cohesion, cultural and historical capital, relational quality, and corporate consideration. Despite their variety, all these perspectives converge on a common idea: a company’s prosperity is increasingly tied to how well it engages with its audiences. In this space, labels, certifications, and accolades abound—sometimes overblown, even bordering on incantatory.

The second driver for redefining economic value is regulation. 2024 saw the implementation of numerous strict requirements—the CSRD being just one example—expanding the very definition of corporate performance. Implicit regulations also come in the form of impact-based rankings, which exert significant influence over business activity. Additionally, shareholder demands for transparency and certification standards are shifting the conversation about value indicators from corporate communications to financial governance.

The third pressure is economic reality itself. Ignoring social and environmental externalities any longer would place an increasing burden on businesses. Beyond mere cynicism, companies must recognize that preserving—or even regenerating—the cultural, social, and environmental fabric of their markets is a prerequisite for their own survival and long-term sustainability. Here, the broadening of value is not just a moral imperative but a critical strategic consideration for the medium and long term.

Mutualism answers these three pressures—a model that speaks softly, often overlooked as a viable response, yet perhaps a forerunner of what mission-driven companies are destined to become.

Mutualism remains a largely misunderstood economic model—even within the mutualist sector itself. Yet, it directly addresses the crises of trust and relational quality that affect society, markets, and management. In doing so, it offers a viable and effective response to broader societal challenges.

From a societal perspective, mutualism has stepped into a space left vacant since the early 1990s. Consider the idea of providence, its deep-rooted origin: once a divine force under the Ancien Régime, it was secularized in the 19th century through the organization of the welfare state—ultimately evolving into a solidarity-based insurance system. This historical shift highlights a contemporary reality: amid a perceived crisis of state authority and weakened democratic representation, mutualist principles—such as proximity, shared governance, and strong member engagement—hold significant appeal. However, these values often remain embedded within discreet, affinity-based networks. This cultural foundation aligns closely with the more recent discussions on mission-driven societal models.

From an economic standpoint, mutualism has demonstrated both its performance and resilience in times of crisis—most notably during the 2010 financial turmoil. Freed from the short-term pressures of an external shareholder base, with stable capital structures and minimal exposure to complex derivatives, mutualist banks and insurers maintained their solidity while others faltered. In the aftermath, they proved naturally aligned with emerging regulatory frameworks such as Basel III and Solvency II. Furthermore, their gradual shift toward sustainable finance and investment in regenerative models fosters both a growing cultural alignment with European populations and a stronger commitment to local economies.

Mutualism is not just an economic model; it is also a managerial system and a distinct work culture. At a time when conventional companies struggle with employee disengagement and high turnover, the mutualist model offers a different kind of managerial pact—one rooted in a defined set of values, a commitment to local impact, and long-term business stability. These factors play a key role in both attracting talent and sustaining long-term managerial relationships.

Once again, the COVID-19 crisis brought this distinction into focus. While many businesses treated issues such as caregiving, mental health, intergenerational support, and local engagement as purely societal concerns, mutualist organizations naturally integrated them into their core approach. Since then, in a context of growing social vulnerability, mutualist enterprises have consistently been ahead of the curve in debates around relational quality and the “economy of consideration”—all without compromising economic performance.

The ongoing discussion about how to define an organization’s value can, therefore, draw from mutualist ethics as a response to a key challenge of our time: the shift from extractive models to more contributive, sustainable frameworks.