Whole Foods CEO calls for new approach
For John Mackey, chief executive officer of Whole Foods, companies should focus not on boosting profits but on finding a deeper purpose.
Mackey, who delivered two public addresses Tuesday, argued that the most successful form of capitalism is what he called “conscious capitalism,” an attitude he said Whole Foods has attempted to espouse in its business dealings. Those seeking profits — like those seeking happiness — will find that both profits and happiness come only out of a larger search for purpose.
“I want us to evolve from the profit focus to the purpose focus, from...
In response to #1, this is highly commendable corporate governorship.
Whole Foods is not just a organic and speciality grocery store, it is a large organization that impacts multiple stakeholders. In fact, it is a model for how we should begin the evolution of the U.S. corporate system. As scholars in the field of political science have emphasized, large corporations are increasingly sovereign over environmental and social governance issues. Firms impact communities, customers, suppliers, management, employees, and shareholders. Firms should they be legally accountable to these stakeholders. Before legal changes in the U.S. can be implemented, companies, such as Whole Foods, who act with foresight and responsibility should be commended and are being rewarded in the marketplace.
@ yale '11,
You are missing the point.
Whole Foods is owned by shareholders and serves the interests of the shareholders.
The goal should be capital preservation with long term growth in the share price while providing income in the form of dividends.
Then shareholders can spend their money as they wish, supporting whatever pet causes and charities they desire.
No, Yale '09, you're missing the point.
If public corporations, like Whole Foods, actually accounted for all the negative externalities they produce as a byproduct of existing and operating, there would be no profits or dividends to be paid out to shareholders.
gosh, can we get one of these in new haven already!
how about on broadway!
Hey j:
Our area is scheduled to get a Whole Foods in "Late 2009" right here:
1650 Boston Post Road
Milford, CT 06460 USA
Of course Broadway would be nice too...
@ Goldie:
Negative externalities?
Give up your seminar-jargon.
Whole Foods operates solely by trade. It cannot force anyone's hand (unlike the government).
In order to get supplies, it must pay their suppliers their desired price.
In order to get customers, it must offer desirable goods at the desirable price.
In order to raise capital, it must offer stock ownership to shareholders at desirable terms.
Any negatives will be thoroughly measured and weighed by both sides of these transactions (and the many other transactions necessary for starting and running a business)
Skip the Latin American seminars and take a microeconomics class.
Mackey has some good points, but get real. This is capitalism. He sounds like he's running a non-profit... Actually, he is running a non-profit!
In response to Yale 09,
please review your economics.
"A 'negative externality' results when part of the cost of producing a good or service is born by a firm or household other than the producer or purchaser" - A Glossary of Political Economy Terms by Dr. Paul M. Johnson of Auburn University.
When you say, "Any negatives will be thoroughly measured and weighed by both sides of these transactions," you seem to refer to the cost-benefit analysis that the parties involved in the economic decision consider when they trade. Sure, those decisions are part of all transactions. The people involved is this discussion are well aware of that.
What Goldie referred to is something called negative EXTERNALITIES. This "is a cost or benefit arising from an economic transaction that falls on a third party and that is not taken into account by those who undertake the transaction." - D McTaggart, C Findlay & M Parkin, Economics , Addison Wesley Publishers Ltd, Sydney, 1992
Whole Foods tries to mitigate the effects of its externalities through voluntary programs that address its effect on the communities in which it operates, the environment, and its employees.
Please review your economics and do not apply introductory concepts inappropriately.
I sure miss Mackey's Yahoo Finance BBS posts...
the one coming to the boston post road is not nearly close enough! i don't have a car! and i wouldn't want to drive that far anyways. bring one to chapel street!
Why can't there be a whole foods store in New Haven? It would get alot of buissness from the east as well as the shoreline. All wehave is that hole in a wall Edge of the Woods. New Haven Hasn't changed with the times.
This is irresponsible corporate governorship.
Whole Foods is owned by shareholders. Every cent that Whole Foods spends on charity should instead be returned to the shareholders in the form of dividends, or should be used for share buy backs which will raise the value of the stock.
Whole Foods is an organic and speciality grocery store. They should at least spend profits to strengthen those aspects of their brand- not promoting social causes.
There is no material difference between a stock company that spends money on charity and one that spends money on lavish Las Vegas conferences. Both are sinkholes in their owners'(shareholders) pockets.
And I LOVE Whole Foods! WF and Trader Joe's are the best grocers out there.