Whole Foods is just one case. But it sounds as if nothing will convince you that businesses can be run in accordance with humanistic ideals, holding profit making as important and excluding everything else. What makes you think that we become automatons as soon as we have shareholder responsibility?
Have you ever run a successful business? I come from a family of entrepreneurs, and from that vantage point I can tell you that more often than not someone working for the good of other would be repaid in kind, while those strictly out for themselves faltered. But it was not that the increased likelihood of increased success caused them to pander to the public, looking for a cut. They continued during the worst of times, for their customers, suppliers, employees, themselves. They persisted when hope ran out, and some failed. But they tried and tried again, driven by that same basic goodness, until something clicked.
No, I think you are reading too much into what I wrote about Whole Foods, mainly because I myself am being very critical of Mackey and his firm here.
"holding profit making as important and excluding everything else" is definitely not what should be done. "When Milton Friedman says a company should stay "within the rules of the game" and operate "without deception or fraud," ... he does not mean that a company should put every last nickel on the bottom line every quarter, regardless of the long-term consequences."
I'm merely arguing that it's the profit that results in businesses generating the goodness to the community, not advocating that everyone should drop everything and pursue profit only. Once you're profitable you can choose a way of contributing back to society. But Friedman suggests that corporate philanthropy isn't the only way. "what reason is there to suppose that the stream of profit distributed in this way would do more good for society than investing that stream of profit in the enterprise itself or paying it out as dividends and letting the stockholders dispose of it?"
There are firms and projects which have benefits which cannot be easily turned into a return for investors (either directly or indirectly) but whose benefit far exceeds the investment of dollars and effort, which are currently severely underfunded (with a lot of variation on the input stream) because the government through a combination of politics and incompetence cannot wisely discriminate between potential recipient, because passersby on the street cannot acquire the requisite facts to make an informed decision, and because corporate entities almost all currently buy into the idea that charity investment is a PR stunt, and nothing more.
It is to the benefit of society to invest in these firms and projects, so if an individual is truly other-centered they may push hard in finding and working for these causes, whose profits don't appear on the bottom line but are spread throughout society.
An example? The all around helpfulness of entrepreneurs, investors and advisors in silicon valley, or hackers here on hacker news. These people put an awful lot of effort into helping out their community, often to absurd lengths: the benefits do not solely or even significantly accrue to them (as is typically the case in profit making entities founded upon an exchange of currency for a good or service), but by their participation the community grows stronger along with their standing in it.
Once again, I do mostly agree with you. Just want to add a few things:
I believe the business doesn't really have this responsibility to invest in those firms/projects that you mention. People do. Nothing is stopping the investors to invest. If investors decide that the business can/should donate, then it is the investors decision to fulfill their social responsibilities. In this sense the business is a separate entity that does not have social responsibilities.
"corporate entities almost all currently buy into the idea that charity investment is a PR stunt, and nothing more" - Well, I myself don't believe that it's "merely a PR stunt". As you say it is sorely needed by public firms that don't really generate a return on investment. But precisely because they treat it as a PR stunt that they let their business earn credit for their donation. If it's not for PR, then the business should be unrelated. Whoever made the decision to invest should get the credit instead.
Have you ever run a successful business? I come from a family of entrepreneurs, and from that vantage point I can tell you that more often than not someone working for the good of other would be repaid in kind, while those strictly out for themselves faltered. But it was not that the increased likelihood of increased success caused them to pander to the public, looking for a cut. They continued during the worst of times, for their customers, suppliers, employees, themselves. They persisted when hope ran out, and some failed. But they tried and tried again, driven by that same basic goodness, until something clicked.