In this article, the chairman and chief executive of Starbucks, Howard Schultz, discusses the importance of moral capitalism in business today. He states that profitability is very important, but treating your customers, employees, and coffee growers should be just as important. Starbucks has embraced a large societal role and explains the importance of the value of your company. In this article, Starbucks' moral capitalism is compared to the “rip your eyeballs out” capitalism of Goldman Sachs. Goldman Sachs corporate culture value is more concerned with making as much money as possible, by whatever means necessary, than their own customers. Many Americans think this “amoral, eat-what-you-kill capitalism” is very repulsive. Also, that these practices don’t represent the values that Americans want to see in corporations. Finally, the article reveals that sometimes the best way to do well is to do good. It is interesting to me that even corporations have and need a system to be efficient and acceptable in the economy and that different corporations can learn from these other corporations with different values, such as Starbucks and Goldman Sachs.
Sunday, March 25, 2012
The Good, Bad, and Ugly of Capitalism
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/17/opinion/nocera-the-good-bad-and-ugly-of-capitalism.html?scp=2&sq=capitalism&st=cse
In this article, the chairman and chief executive of Starbucks, Howard Schultz, discusses the importance of moral capitalism in business today. He states that profitability is very important, but treating your customers, employees, and coffee growers should be just as important. Starbucks has embraced a large societal role and explains the importance of the value of your company. In this article, Starbucks' moral capitalism is compared to the “rip your eyeballs out” capitalism of Goldman Sachs. Goldman Sachs corporate culture value is more concerned with making as much money as possible, by whatever means necessary, than their own customers. Many Americans think this “amoral, eat-what-you-kill capitalism” is very repulsive. Also, that these practices don’t represent the values that Americans want to see in corporations. Finally, the article reveals that sometimes the best way to do well is to do good. It is interesting to me that even corporations have and need a system to be efficient and acceptable in the economy and that different corporations can learn from these other corporations with different values, such as Starbucks and Goldman Sachs.
In this article, the chairman and chief executive of Starbucks, Howard Schultz, discusses the importance of moral capitalism in business today. He states that profitability is very important, but treating your customers, employees, and coffee growers should be just as important. Starbucks has embraced a large societal role and explains the importance of the value of your company. In this article, Starbucks' moral capitalism is compared to the “rip your eyeballs out” capitalism of Goldman Sachs. Goldman Sachs corporate culture value is more concerned with making as much money as possible, by whatever means necessary, than their own customers. Many Americans think this “amoral, eat-what-you-kill capitalism” is very repulsive. Also, that these practices don’t represent the values that Americans want to see in corporations. Finally, the article reveals that sometimes the best way to do well is to do good. It is interesting to me that even corporations have and need a system to be efficient and acceptable in the economy and that different corporations can learn from these other corporations with different values, such as Starbucks and Goldman Sachs.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Corporations like Goldman Sachs have the choice of either following the current practices on Wall Street or leaving the industry altogether. But Goldman Sachs and Starbucks have one thing in common: they care about their clients.
It just seems unfair to me to compare Starbucks and Goldman Sachs, since they are in completely different industries. I think companies selling consumer goods tend to put more focus on their 'moral' objectives, regardless of whether or not they actually believe in them. With a more elite and specific clientele, I don't think Goldman needs to have the pristine public image that Starbucks relies on. The overarching goal of both companies (both public) is to increase profits and shareholder value. 'Helping' the customer, regardless of the public rhetoric, is just a means through which companies seek to attract business and loyalty.
I agree with Howard Schultz and I wish more companies were like him when he says that customers, employees, and suppliers are as important as profits. I feel American employers exploit too many of their workers and do not compensate them as much as they could because of their own greed.
There seems to be a conflicting view of what we value versus the "eat-what-you-kill-capitalism" in the business world today. Consumers want the lowest price possible for products yet they want the company to have good morals toward their employees who are making their products (ex. coffee bean pickers for Starbucks). I think the big question here is, how are corporations suppose to keep the price of their products low when they would have to increase their costs because they are following American morals?
This reminds me of the recent increase of "green" products. At this point, with so much press about these issues, Americans should be doing their own research as to whether a product is really green, fair trade, or a type of "moral capitalism". It is easy to get caught up in the advertising and forget that some companies are just trying to sell their product and are following the consumer trends.
Post a Comment