Summary Of John Mackey's Putting Customers

A Critical Analysis of the Stigma of Writing

Businesses have a significant impact on many communities around it, whether that impact is intentional or not. So, with that being said, should these businesses have a responsibility to society? To answer that question, John Mackey and T.J Rodgers both have written articles with differing views to give readers an understanding of what should be done in their minds. I’m going to break down both arguments respectively.

In Mackey’s article “Putting Customers ahead of Investors” he begins by stating how the orthodox free market system functions according to Milton Friedman. Next, Mackey clearly states he is opposed to the current free market system in which, the only law that businesses must follow,

is to maximize profits for the shareholders. Moving forward in his argument, he uses ethos and states why he is a figure that is to be respected and trusted with his ideas and claims. As co-founder of Whole Foods Market, he has a vast personal experience with the subject matter and is using a business model that represents his argument and is successful and profitable to not only the shareholders, but all the stakeholders.
Mackey then uses logos when he discusses the finances of the company to clearly prove that his idea of how a company should operate is very feasible and can still turn a profit.

He then discusses the opposing side to his argument in which corporations should have no philanthropic interest and it is a violation to shareholders money if they do not handle it responsibly. He does agree with this viewpoint, and even says there is nothing wrong with it, it’s just that the argument is simply too narrow. In his own words, “First, there can be little doubt that a certain amount of corporate philanthropy is simply good business and works for the long-term benefit of the investors” (Mackey 453). He then follows up with an example in which his company, Whole Foods Market, holds a “5% day” where 5% of all profit for that day goes toward a non-profit organization of there choosing that follows their own beliefs. This philanthropic tactic increases the number of returning and new customers who become regulars; profits rise even though a percentage of it is given away for, in his eyes, a greater

purpose.
Many people who are opposed to this viewpoint believe that this is stealing from the investors, however Mackey addresses this by saying that as long as the company states these ideas publicly then there is nothing wrong, and if investors don’t agree with it, then can simply not invest, or sell their current investments and transfer them to a company that is better aligned with their beliefs. The amount of 5% of all profits as a donation amount that Whole Foods Market gives out is up to the individual company, however, Mackey strongly believes that 0% is too little. To further explain why his company operates this way, he turns to Adam Smith, a writer of many book dealing with economics and philosophy that are widely accepted today.
In Smith’s book The Theory of Moral Sentiments he states that along with self-interest; sympathy, empathy, friendship, love, and the desire for social acceptance are all a vital part of human nature.

Mackey compares his company to these ideals and is thus saying that his company gives back because it is a part of human nature to do so. Overall, he believes that all companies to take up this practice and that each individual corporation needs to find a balance between giving and profiting, as long as you give more that 0%. I find his argument to be Rogerian based as he with his own company and as he recommends to others to find a middle ground between how much they give and how much they profit for their investors, and states that the opposing sides argument is correct but can also take in some of his ideas to improve the corporate business structure and have everybody benefit. In his article, he creates an argument that most people wouldn’t find an opposition too, and leaves the reader in agreement with his ideas, who wouldn’t want everybody to benefit from a corporation? Why would somebody be opposed to a corporation keeping profits for the investors high and also giving back to the community who supports them. Well, in T.J Rodgers article “Put Profits First” we dig deeper into the other side of the

argument.
Continuing on, T.J Rodgers in his article boldly states that Mackey’s ideas are an attack on corporate profit maximization, and that his ideas couldn’t even be aligned with those of a true “free market libertarian”. Rodgers claims that in Mackey’s article he spouts nonsense and that his ideas are simply not good. However, in doing so, Rodgers weakens his argument due to how this portion of the argument is phrased as more of a personal attack and rant, rather than a professional critiquing an equal peers work. He then moves on to discussing what Mackey wrote in his article, particularly the ideas that he agrees with and he properly summarizes these portions fairly well but lacks to summarize his entire argument and in my eyes twists Mackey’s words to believe that he thinks there is only one proper way for a company to operate or they are doing it wrong, which is incorrect. Rodgers then uses ethos to build his credibility on why you should trust his word as owner of Cypress Semiconductor, which is a company that has won the Second Harvest Food bank competition for the last 13 years. He discusses how this food donation event creates a positive environment for the employees and is good for P.R. and for the community, he then compares this to Mackey’s Whole Foods Market 5% day and says they both made a profit. However, just because Cypress Semiconductors contribution is more directly beneficial to them and wasn’t a donation of profits in Mackey’s eyes makes them a selfish company. Rodgers explains that Mackey’s depiction of “self-interest” as being too narrow in his argument and Rodgers also highly disagrees with the idea that stakeholders can have some word in how a company operates compared to the shareholders and compares this Marxism. He then continues the argument with a discussion on the number of corporations that have been found to be conduction is a way that is against the law, which to me is confusing as this isn’t addressing anything in Mackey’s article, nor is it in his own, it is very out of place and then when this portion is over is no longer relevant. Rodgers finally ends his argument saying he is proud of his free market capitalistic ideals, and that he didn’t enjoy being compared to a egocentric child just because he doesn’t give back as stated in Mackey’s article.
In my eyes, there is a definitive winner out of these two arguments, purely based on the quality of the arguments compared to one another. Mackey’s was much more well presented with quality use of ethos, logos, and a tiny bit of pathos, which adopting Rogerian ideas and finding a middle ground between the two arguments, and seeing the side opposed to him as an equal and their ideas are to be respected as well. However, with Rodgers argument, it seemed to be very unprofessional, and just the thought of considering Mackey’s ideas was so repulsive to him that he personally attacks the author in his own writing really weakened the argument for me. His lack of supporting material to back up his claims, and irrelevant portions of the article that take away focus from the main argument which is Mackey’s ideals are wrong, and free market capitalism can’t and shouldn’t be operated in the way that he depicts.

Bibliography
Rottenberg, Annette, and Winchell, Donna. Elements of Argument, Eleventh Edition, Boston/St. Martin’s, 2015.
Mackey, John. “Putting Customers ahead of Investors”. Elements of Argument Eleventh Edition, edited by Annette T. Rottenburg, and Donna Haisty Winchell, Boston/St. Martin’s, 2015, 452-455.
Rodgers, T.J. “Put Profits First”. Elements of Argument Eleventh Edition, edited by Annette T. Rottenburg, and Donna Haisty Winchell, Boston/St. Martin’s, 2015, 452-455.