And why, do you think, shareholders don't pursue that strategy? They're giving their own money to CEOs - are they doing it just because they're feeling charitable?
In other words, your argument supposes that a LOT of individual actors, independently, pursue a strategy (overpaying execs) that isn't optimal, and you don't even bother with an explanation as to why does it happen. This logical fallacy happens all the time when exec compensation is discussed, and it really bothers me that everyone just assumes that shareholders and board of directors of so many different companies are just plain stupid.
Who should be in charge of how 'sensible' is defined? And how can you argue that it attracts the best talent? Most people outside Spain probably have never heard of Mondragón, but they've almost certainly heard of Google, Facebook, Amazon, AliBaba or Baidu.
I agree that those tech companies have greater name recognition.
What you will see is that, for example, instead of top managers of a co-op making hundreds or thousands more than the median employee as in a public corporation, they make a more sensible amount which still attracts and sustains the best talent in the enterprise.