John Mackey's Essay On Corporate Social Responsibility

Social Responsibility is the new buzz word in the world of business. “It’s no longer a question of if companies should engage in [corporate social responsibility]. It’s now a question of to what extent will they do so […], “says Alison DaSilva, executive vice president for research and insights at Cone Communications (Brooks). The question, however, is not whether or not companies should be socially responsible, but how is that society defined and how is that social responsibly determined. In their debate on social responsibly of business, John Macke and T.J. Rodgers are not in disagreement about the implementation of the concept. Their disagreement is based on definitions of society and on their philosophical justification for business philanthropy.
Rodgers admits that a business community includes a variety of stakeholders, but that the chief stakeholders are the investors who are the owners of the corporation. He further maintains that the other stakeholders “should [not] be allowed to control the property of the shareholders” (Rodgers 198). In other words the interests of the investors must come before those of any other group. His is a wholly valid position, because a corporation is a group of people who has come together for the purpose of making a profit, not for the purpose of performing good works.

The philosophical difference between Mackey and Rodgers is based not on the practice but on the justification of business philanthropy. Mackey’s philosophy that social responsibility is not only altruistic, but also makes good business sense. He points to the success of Whole Foods Market that he co-foundered in 1980:

When I co-foundered Whole Foods Market 27 years ago, we began with $45,000 in capitol; we only had $250,000 in sales our first year. During the last 12
Rodger’s retort references Milton Freidman’s statement about how company’s need not give all profits away regardless of long-term consequence. What Friedman was saying was a company needs to stay “within the rules of the game” and function “without deception or fraud” (Rodgers 197). In other words, it’s not only justifiable and accepted by consumers that a company will make a profit, but nevertheless it’s expected that a business will and should make a profit. As long as the business remains fair and not untruthful in regards to their product and sales tactic.

I’m in agreement with Rodgers and Freidman’s position. Some philanthropic activity is the politically correct approach, in addition to somewhat necessary in order to sustain a company for the long stretch. However does it have to be a predefined amount, or in the form of money, therefore taking profits from the investors in order to be considered humanitarian and altruistic? I believe