I think the most practical issue is that we're not talking about companies per se, but individuals. And the time horizon of any given individual tends to be much less than the time horizon of a company. So imagine you're an executive at XBox, and find yourself in charge of their games division. Your performance is going to be measured based on your results over the next quarters where the next few years would be 'long term.' And so your actions are going to be geared towards maximizing returns over that window.
'Shareholder value' is another problem. Shareholders, in general, do not hold shares of companies because they want those companies to succeed, but because they expect returns from those companies. If they can get a 50% return and then have the company die in a fiery blaze, most shareholders would be perfectly fine with that so long as they were reasonably confident that they wouldn't, themselves, get burnt. So you have shareholders with no interest in the long-term similarly aligned with executives who have no interest in the long-run.
There's also probably more technical issues like discounting earnings over time. A penny earned today is generally considered significantly more valuable than a penny earned tomorrow by companies due to inflation, opportunity cost, and other such issues. So even if you think the long-term is relevant, the expected earnings cost would have to be dramatic to make it comparable to the impact of next quarter.