1.0

Introduction – The following is applicable to all Whole Foods Market (WFM) Team Members and Directors. This code of conduct/ethics is intended to describe situations creating an actual, potential or perceived conflict of interest for WFM Team Members, Directors and their immediate families, and set forth the Company’s policy regarding those situations. A conflict of interest may exist if a Team Member’s or Director’s position or authority may be used to influence or make decisions that lead to any form of financial or personal gain for that Team Member or Director or member of his or her immediate family, and is not limited to the examples included in this policy.

The majority of this code, particularly parts pertaining specifically to executive officers and Directors, is based on the rules of governing bodies such as the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Nasdaq stock exchange, and the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB). This code will be made publicly available, in accordance with Nasdaq policy. Failure to comply with this code of conduct/ethics may subject a Team Member to immediate termination.

This code is intended to establish such standards as are reasonably necessary to promote: (1) honest and ethical conduct, including the ethical handling of actual or apparent conflicts of interest between personal and professional relationships; (2) full, fair, accurate, timely, and understandable disclosure in the periodic reports required to be filed by WFM; and (3) compliance with applicable governmental rules and regulations. While the situations described below illustrate ways in which conflicts may arise, the subject of conflicts of interest is so broad and complex that the avoidance of conflict basically rests with each person’s ethical standards, integrity and judgment. We recognize that situations may exist which are entirely proper and yet contain potential conflicts of interest or the appearance of a conflict of interest. In all such cases, it is the responsibility of the Team Member or Director to report anything that appears or could be construed as a conflict of interest, even if the Team Member or Director believes there is no wrong doing or actual conflict. When in doubt, report; always err on the side of disclosure.

The WF Board is launching an independent investigation: http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/company/pr_07-17-07a.html

The SEC contacted WF about an inquiry into the situation: http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/investor/pr07-07-17.html

http://multiplex.integralinstitute.org/Public/cs/forums/thread/25674.aspx:

It will be interesting to see what the fallout is.

Everyone is quick to jump on the ethical issue. But what is the ethical issue in play? Is it a question of whether or not he broke the law? (Which we will have to wait and find out about.) Or is there a bigger issue of fair play, hitting above the belt, etc? Or, are we more concerned about Whole Foods stake holders, and how their investment will be affected by what he did. Do we admire what John Mackey did, and fault him only for getting caught, or are we appalled that he would take such a risk to begin with? All of these are important and will be looked at, no doubt.

Personally, I reacted most strongly to the potential for negative fallout. Regardless of whether he did anything illegal or unethical (as in unethical business practices) it seems to me like it should be obvious that this is the kind of thing could blow up in all kinds of negative ways. So it just seems stupid. This is the same reaction I had to Clinton. It was like, how could you be so STUPID!!! (As for the ethicality of Clinton’s indiscretions in terms of how they affected others, a case could be made that it cost Al Gore the election. What’s between him and his wife is their business.)

It would be interesting to know what Mr. Mackey’s conscious intentions were. It went on for 8 years, so definitely not a case of temporary insanity. Was it a deliberate and imaginative attempt to affect the market, as jikishin is saying? Or was it more of an entertainment, or as a way to wind down after work? Or both perhaps. I wonder, if he was deliberately trying to affect the market, how serious was he and how much of an effect did he believe he could have. Conversely, I wonder, if he was acting only for his personal reasons, to what degree did he believe his actions could not possibly have any meaningful effect in the big scheme of things.

We’d have to ask John Mackey himself if we want to know his conscious motivations. And, there may be some extent to which he doesn’t know why he did it. What about his unconscious motivations? What shadow material is in play here, if any?

Well, maybe shadow isn’t significantly involved. It is possible that, whatever the reasons, he knew exactly what he was doing, that he looked at the potential benefits and risks, and made a calculated decision. If this is the case, then the first thing to be noted is something Ken Wilber talked about (where was that…???) how very successful people – CEO’s and Presidents – are so used to succeeding that they can be blind to their own fallibility. An “I can do no wrong” syndrome. (Question: is this in itself a shadow symptom?)

If this is the case though, the question comes up: how can someone who is held up as a model for his ability to create a Green/Teal business (in the best sense) could do something so, well, Orange. One answer is: of course he has strong orange, strong orange is necessary for success as a CEO. This argument would say that he did what his orange self thought was best for the company. It might go further and say green should stay out of business decisions, especially when it comes to the competitive part of it, and leave orange decisions to orange. No contradiction.

And a possible response to that would be: why then the seeming underhandedness, compulsive secretiveness. The very nature of what he did – anonymously taking on an alter-ego to say things he would not be able to say as himself – in a very literal sense invokes images of shadow.

And this brings me to the orange shadow. Because it is such an obvious setup. A guy evolves through green and surprise, surprise suppresses a certain amount of orange self in the process. Moving up into second tier he creates a successful business founded squarely on green principles. In order for the company to succeed he calls on his orange self (the part that isn’t suppressed) and is remarkably successful. Really, really successful. The kind of success that could mess with orange, make it think it is something special. Healthy orange is still ok. It’s doing its job well and there is a boss who’s making the decisions – the CEO. But the success bothers green (green influences coming from both the UL and LL) and it starts worrying, complaining, accusing, which is of course a real problem for orange. More suppression of orange, a deep schism forms. Meanwhile, the suppressed orange self is all hot and bothered. All this power, energy coming in and nothing to do, no way to release it. It needs a way to express itself. So it invents one….

Is this John Mackey? Honestly, I don’t know.

As an update, it appears the SEC is doing an informal inquiry into the legality of Mackey’s behavior. There have also been rumors that WF’s Board might take some action. Here are some examples of what I’m talking about. So I’m not holding I-I to any higher standard, just a “reasonable” expectation.

It is reasonable if they espouse integral ideas on their company blog and sit on the board of I-I. Otherwise no.

And let me reiterate: I much respect Mackey for many of the more “liberal” practices he’s instituted in his company. But there’s still a long way to go.

I guess I see a lot of modern business practices as the game that developed after we started to “generate enough food not to have to kill each other over it directly.” If we accept the idea of integral stretching down to that base of a level, I think that it hints at something fundamental. Tribalism- killing to feed yourself and family, killing to protect your family, working to support your family. Trying to secure your family’s future. Millions of us trying to do that without killing each other too often in the process. Higher states of conciousness must always integrate this. The word “greed” hits me in the same way that the word “racism” does. Both are real, and a bane to society, but both are bandied about in a way that ignores their fundamental mechanics. (We also shouldn’t forget the level of perspective that Ray was trying to bring when he talked about the Chinese earlier.)

The key is easy: A mixed economy that gets the incentives right. There very much needs to be free capitalism to suit the greedheads, to inspire them to be efficient and creative, but with regulation, too, and penalties that sting and tax rates that balance in fairness and economic justice.

“It seems so fitting that there have been no posts here. The integral subculture seems ethically challenged, morally confused or perhaps simply cowardly.”