The Greatest Companies You Can Own

Milton Friedman once famously wrote that "the social responsibility of business is to increase its profits." He rejected the idea that companies had a responsibility to anything other than the bottom line -- and he wasn't alone.

But recent events in the financial markets have cast serious doubt on his assumption that every company can and should operate as though they alone existed. The subprime, liquidity, and consumer confidence crises demonstrate that capitalism depends not just on maximizing company profits -- but on a systemic concern for the whole.

And there are a number of entrepreneurs demonstrating that taking their responsibility toward others seriously actually contributes to the bottom line -- and shareholder profits.

Everybody wins
Consider the case of socially responsible grocer Whole Foods (Nasdaq: WFMI  ) . When John Mackey co-founded the company (then known as Safer Way) in 1980, it had $45,000 in capital and made $250,000 in annual sales. Since then, sales have expanded to nearly $8 billion, and its market capitalization -- even after losing 80% over the past year -- sits around $1.4 billion.

That's an annualized growth rate of nearly 45%.

How did he do it? As Mackey revealed during a debate with Milton Friedman and Cypress Semiconductor founder T.J. Rodgers, "we measure our success by how much value we can create for all six of out most important stakeholders: customers, team members (employees), investors, vendors, communities, and the environment."

But Whole Foods' commitment to all of its stakeholders hasn't undermined its ability to generate profits. In fact, commitment to its stakeholders allows it to treat customers with "greater interest, passion, and empathy," empower employees, and contribute to communities philanthropically -- in addition to generating profits. The upshot of this goodwill is a healthier and, ultimately, more profitable business.

Mackey considers his stakeholder-centric model and the goodwill it generates to be Whole Foods' most significant competitive advantage and the reason for its success.

Another sign of greatness
And Mackey isn't alone. Jack Welch, who presided over General Electric's 24-year rise from a $14 billion to a $410 billion company, explains in his Lessons for Success, "The three most important things you need to measure in business are customer satisfaction, employee satisfaction, and cash flow."

Why should employee satisfaction matter to shareholders? A Harvard Business Review study found that customer satisfaction -- which, after all, drives revenue -- depends mostly on employee satisfaction.

In other words, if you're looking for a great, profit-generating company, one thing you might look at is how that company treats its employees.

Need more proof? I compiled data from Fortune Magazine's 2002 rankings of "The Best 100 Companies to Work For" to see if great employers also made great investments. Take a look at these returns:

Rank in 2002

Company

Returns (2003-2007)

18

Qualcomm (Nasdaq: QCOM  )

126%

24

Cisco (Nasdaq: CSCO  )

107%

34

Nordstrom

312%

46

Proctor & Gamble (NYSE: PG  )

89%

70

Valero (NYSE: VLO  )

687%

Source: Fortune Magazine and Yahoo! Finance.

On average, publicly traded members of Fortune's "Best Companies to Work For" returned 106% over the next five years, far better than the S&P's 80% gain.

SPICE-y returns
The same thing holds true when we look at companies that are rated excellent at serving all of their stakeholders, what marketing scholars Sisodia, Wolfe, and Sheth called "firms of endearment."

They surveyed thousands of people about which companies they love. Over two years, teams of MBA students visited with the stakeholders of those companies most frequently named, and those visits generated a list of 30 companies, including eBay (Nasdaq: EBAY  ) and Southwest Airlines (NYSE: LUV  ) , which attract affection and loyalty by aligning with and serving the interests of "society, partners, investors, customers, and employees," also collectively referred to by the interestingly appropriate acronym "SPICE."

The results were astounding: Over the 10-year period ending June 2006, the publicly traded firms of endearment returned 1,026%, more than eight times the S&P 500's 122% gain. They also crushed the market over five- and three-year periods.

Put them to work for you
John Mackey argues that "these ideas will triumph over time, not by persuading intellectuals and economists through argument but by winning the competitive test of the marketplace." And they've already begun.

Here are a few rules of thumb for profiting from this trend.

  • Put the companies you love on your research list -- and find out if others share your love.
  • Look at lists of the best companies to work for as well as lists of firms of endearment to find companies you might not have heard of.
  • Invest in companies whose management is focused on creating enduring businesses through delighting customers and caring for their employees.

Fool co-founders David and Tom Gardner have recommended to Motley Fool Stock Advisor members three stocks that are both firms of endearment and members of this year's list of the best companies to work for. Tom and David believe that company engagement, backed by excellent business practices, is a surefire combination. To date, their picks are up 13% on average, versus a 17% loss for like amounts invested in the S&P 500.

Want to find out which three companies made David and Tom's roster? Just click here for a 30-day free trial -- there's no obligation to subscribe, and you'll also see all of their recommendations for new money now.

Ilan Moscovitz owns shares of Whole Foods but of no other security mentioned. eBay and Whole Foods are Stock Advisor recommendations. The Fool has a spicy disclosure policy.


Read/Post Comments (5) | Recommend This Article (39)

Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On November 03, 2008, at 4:25 PM, oddhack wrote:

    I think you need to do more research before citing companies like you do in this article. You claim Silicon Graphics had a return of 633% between 2003-2007. I don't know where this number could possibly have come from, since SGI declared bankruptcy in 2006, and all shareholder assets were wiped out.

    I worked for SGI from 1997-2006 - whatever reason Fortune might have cited it for being a great place to work, it was depressing as hell because of the company's performance. There were almost constant losses, 2-3 significant layoffs/year, smart people fleeing to competitors like NVIDIA, ATI, and Apple, and management that had no clue how to succeed in a rapidly commoditizing environment. By the time I left shortly after the bankruptcy, the company was less than 15% of its size and revenues in 1997. SGI has continued to shrink since then and is very close to failing again.

    Given that your SGI data is wildly off, I have to question the rest of the numbers in your article as well.

  • Report this Comment On November 04, 2008, at 9:36 PM, abliviax wrote:

    The article doesn't mention Silicon Graphics, was it edited?

  • Report this Comment On November 05, 2008, at 5:59 PM, oddhack wrote:

    abliviax - yes, it was edited after my initial post. I think Ilan is simply cherry-picking a few examples that supports his claims, and I doubt they would stand up to rigorous analysis.

    Of course that's not too surprising - TMF is now mostly in the business of pushing stock tip newsletters, from what I've seen of their evolution over the last years.

  • Report this Comment On November 06, 2008, at 12:22 AM, TMFDiogenes wrote:

    Hi oddhack,

    Thanks for your comments. We have a fairly rigorous fact-checking process, though sometimes mistakes like SGI do get through. I apologize for the error. After your original post I double-checked the other 53 companies' returns to make sure everything was accurate, which it is.

    .

    As you can see, the publicly traded members of Fortune's list did substantially outperform the S&P over that time period by a margin of 26 points (or 4 percentage points annually). I don't think I'm cherry-picking results -- the group as a whole did quite well: only 12% of the stocks actually declined over those five years, and fully 41% of the companies more than doubled during that period. So the five examples I chose were not unusual in that regard, nor were they the top five performers of the bunch. Sure, each of the five examples supported my case, but that's just what it is to be an example.

    .

    According to the Fortune article, Silicon Graphics was chosen because the "company touts paid six-week sabbaticals after four years as well as on-site massages, foosball tables, espresso machines, a subsidized cafeteria, and sand volleyball courts." I'm not defending their choice, but that was their reasoning. I am really sorry to hear that it was such a depressing place to work. If what you say is true, that morale was low and the company couldn't figure out how to retain their smartest employees, then it is no wonder that they ultimately failed. That's largely the point that I'm trying to get across in the article -- that while Wall Street frequently likes to cheer purely bottom-line oriented managers, companies that actually care about treating their customers and employees well frequently, over time, develop a significant advantage over their more narrow-minded competitors. As investors, that's something we would all do well to keep in mind.

    Thanks for reading,

    Ilan

  • Report this Comment On November 09, 2008, at 4:19 PM, anotherjames wrote:

    By citing the recent economic "crisis", the intro to this article incorrectly second guesses Friedman's philosophy that businesses ought to only be concerned with maximizing their own profits without concern for others. If the individuals of Wall Street knew back then just how bad the hangover is right now, it's unlikely they would have partied so hard, not out of concern for their fellow party-goers, but more out of concern for their own individual splitting headaches right now.

Add your comment.

Sponsored Links

Leaked: Apple's Next Smart Device
(Warning, it may shock you)
The secret is out... experts are predicting 458 million of these types of devices will be sold per year. 1 hyper-growth company stands to rake in maximum profit - and it's NOT Apple. Show me Apple's new smart gizmo!

DocumentId: 768335, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 12/22/2014 8:51:57 PM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...


Advertisement