Whole Foods acknowledges that is serves those willing to pay a premium for organic, healthy food. In class, we touched on whether it is Whole Foods’ responsibility to also service lower-income populations. I remain torn and would love to hear others’ opinions. It was not Whole Foods’ mission to solve hunger and I am not sure it was to bring healthy food to everyone either. Is it enough that WF influenced other markets and even Wal-Mart to incorporate these options into their selections? I can’t help but think, no one is asking Louis Vuitton to make more affordable purses. On the other hand, when so much of Whole Foods’ mission is tied to social good it seems insincere to exclude the population that needs the most help.
Additionally, does anyone know of any companies that mirror Whole Foods’ model of multiple shareholders when the customer base is low-income? I feel that in order to be customer-centered, which in this instance often means low cost, the rest of the shareholders (suppliers, environment, etc) bear the burden.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think this is exactly the mindset we need to change - cheap means unhealthy. We were having this discussion the other day with a couple of people who are working at grassroots level in India. When we are taught the rich source of iron, we are taught about spinach. No one talks about radish green leaves - in fact we discard away the leaves (although they can be cooked and are much richer source of iron). We need to think how does cost gets added. If we look at locally grown, simple and seasonal products (which would probably differ based on geography) and then promote their significance in our diet rather than preaching on rich man's diet or having the privilege to eat anything all round the year, we can easily provide cheap and healthy products. I remember growing up in India, i used to have craving for radish in summers but never used to get it in the market. When the season for a vegetable used to arrive, they used to be more expensive in the beginning since only a few farms had their produce out by then and used to get much cheaper as we get further into the season. With the advent of frozen food, all that changed.
ReplyDeleteThis also percolates down into the mindset that fast food chains have developed - eat out and eat cheap. People are beginning to loose the habit of cooking at home. Even when people take pride in not eating out too much, if they consciously take a deeper look into their diet - it is mostly frozen food. It takes effort for preparing, washing the dishes, but one can get cheap and healthy food at home without eating frozen food. And the media does not do too good either (the other day i saw the advertisement on television where they said something of the sort - "Studies have shown that children who spend time eating dinners with their families grow up to be better. We present XYZ - just open it, microwave it and you have a healthy meal with your family." Really?
I would say it is and it isn't Whole Foods' responsibility to service lower-income communities.
ReplyDeleteI will play the cynical devil's advocate and say that as a business, in fact I don't think their primary purpose was much more than simple profits. They saw a market opportunity to provide organic food to people who demanded it and were willing to pay for quality, convenience, selection, and a simply nicer grocery experience. Their insistence on good supplier practices, instances of philanthropy, advocacy, employee involvement in the community, were all results of the nature of their customer base. If they didn't perform all these extra good deeds, their customers would have left them. So in that sense, they have no obligation to service lower-income individuals because that's not their target segment, and their customers don't demand it. The day Whole Foods customers do demand that the lower-income populace be served, they will take measures to address it and avoid losing their clientele. (similarly, they never felt they were overcharging anyone until their customers started defecting to Trader Joe's).
On the other hand, we can say that it indeed is their responsibility to provide organic food to lower-income populations and to address world hunger. This would be more from a Schwab kind of philosophy, where in general it's a corporation's responsibility to both generate profits and provide for gaps in the social space. It wouldn't be the special responsibility of Whole Foods per se, any more than it's the responsibility of General Mills, or Wal-Mart, or Monsanto. Nonetheless, if there's a need that must be met, such as providing food that is both affordable and sustainable, then given that Whole Foods can meet this need, it's their responsibility as a global corporate citizen to do so.
The aspiring Rich White Woman
ReplyDeleteAs an aspiring rich white woman, I see two problems with Whole Foods' current model.
1. As a business that takes pride in building social responsibility through out its supply chain, how can Whole Foods not attempt to bring social responsibility to those they are supplying?! Does the client base not count as part of the supply chain; does the supply chain stop when items get to the store or does it cycle around to consumers?
2. By marketing to only middle and upper income people, they leave out the people who are currently low-income but may one day be upper/middle income. Therefore, instead of capturing a client base that is up and coming (read students, newly employed..), knowing that a portion of them will soon be able to afford their goods, they focus only on the upper/middle income folks.
I do recognize that Whole foods is trying to capture students by placing their stores in University towns, however, University students are often politically aware of the divide that exists between low income and upper income people in America and are more sensitive that the average Joe to their plight. Thus, if Whole Foods started a campaign to bring more low income people into their stores, perhaps they would gain kudos points and earn more students as clients.
It is surprising how big private investors are not tapping this highly profitable industry yet and there is no big company (other than a pseudoparallel - Trader Joe's) left to compete with Whole Foods (after all the acquisition that Whole Foods made). I see a big role that the government can play here by promoting and incentivizing organic food industry. More competition means lower prices, better affordability, better quality, authenticity (as we were discussing in the class) and resultant social welfare. Everybody eats healthy,rich and poor, health care costs go down, and we are in a happy, healthy world.
ReplyDeleteIt is probably not that straight...