The Purpose of Business
It would be impossible to clearly define the purpose of business without quoting large portions of Peter Drucker’s chapter in his masterpiece “Management: Tasks, Responsibilities, Practices”. He writes a chapter on the specific question: “What is a Business?”. His argument is so simple, profound and convincing that I cannot escape its power and am convinced it is the clearest explanation available. Simply, it reflects the total truth of business and has much explanatory power. This is in no small part to Peter Drucker’s own sympathy to the Christian faith. He has seen past culture and opinion to drill down to the very core truths. I am in awe of some of his writing. He is in short the philosopher of business. Moving away from my obvious appreciation for him, I’d like to concentrate on one of his key ideas: The purpose of business.
My interest in the purpose of business is twofold. First it is something I just want to know. Secondly I am intending to study a Masters in Business Administration soon. I figure that if I’m going to do an MBA I should know what it’s all about at it’s core. My interest as a Christian is to understand how a business glorifies God if indeed man’s chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him for ever. Wayne Grudem wrote in his book “Business for the Glory of God” about what the Bible teaches on the moral goodness of Business. This book examines many facets of business (employment, ownership, competition, borrowing, lending et cetera) and discusses how each one specifically glorifies God. Unfortunately he does not say how business itself glorifies God. Perhaps this is because Grudem didn’t want to get into a debate on the purpose of business and why it exists and must exist.
So how do we go from what Peter Drucker claims to be the purpose of business to the ultimate purpose of creation, which is to glorify God?
Well let’s get into it. What is a business?
To know what a business is we have to start with its purpose. Its purpose must lie outside of the business itself. In fact, it must lie in society since business enterprise is an organ of society. There is only one valid definition of business purpose: to create a customer
Markets are not created by God, nature, or economic forces but by businessmen. The want a business satisfies may have been felt by the customer before he was offered the means of satisfying it. Like food in a famine, it may have dominated the customer’s life and filled all his waking moments, but it remained a potential want until the action of businessmen converted it into effective demand. Only then is there a customer and a market. The want may have been unfelt by the potential customer; no one knew that he wanted a Xerox machine or a computer until these became available. There may have been no want at all until business action created it—by innovation, by credit, by advertising, or by salesmanship. In every case, it is business action that creates the customer.
It is the customer who determines what a business is. It is the customer alone whose willingness to pay for a good or for a service converts economic resources into wealth, things into goods. What the business thinks it produces is not of first importance—especially not to the future of the business and to its success. The typical engineering definition of quality is something that is hard to do, is complicated, and costs a lot of money! But that isn’t quality; it’s incompetence. What the customer thinks he’s buying, what he considers value is decisive—it determines what a business is, what it produces, and whether it will prosper. And what the customer buys and considers value is never a product. It is always utility, that is, what a product or service does for him.
The customer is the foundation of a business and keeps it in existence. He alone gives emplyment. To supply the wants and needs of a consumer, society entrusts wealth-producing resources to the business enterprise.
So this purpose is in fact compatible with a Christian world-view. If we give God glory by imitating him then creating is about as basic as you get. In fact an understanding that creating customers as the primary purpose of business leads you to business’ two basic functions: marketing and innovation. Marketing, or creating markets, is the distinguishing unique function of business. A business markets a product or service and in this it is different from any other organisation. An organisation without marketing, or an organisation in which marketing is incidental, is not a business.
Marketing is so essential that it cannot be separated from other business activities such as personnel, sales or accounting. Sure it can require separate staff and activities but it is first the central activity of the whole business. If the ultimate aim is to create customers, and it is marketing that primarily achieves this, then seen from the customer (the final point of view) it is the key activity. It must be a knit into every part of the business.
This post is in progress but feel free to comment anytime….


As you know, the business world is a bit alien to me, but this is an intriguing post which has made me think, and so I wondered…. Following the passage defining the purpose of business, you say this purpose is in fact compatible with a Christian world-view. How might this fit with the part of the passage which identifies that business may create a want – an ‘unfelt want’ – in a customer? Doesn’t this create greed? Wanting what we don’t need?
I wish you could ‘hear’ the timidity with which I’m typing this! Feel free to blow my question out of the water…
Good question Vicky.
Does creating a want (perhaps we could use the biblical term desire) result in greed? And is it therefore wrong?
And in reality:
You see a ad on the TV reminding you that Coke exists and that it tastes nice, especially when served “Ice Cold”. You now would quite like a Coke. I’d love one just now, even as I write this. Is it greed to want a Coke? Perhaps.
If this indeed created greed, then we must conclude that any business which produces any product that is not essential must be sinful. Can you survive without a telephone, computer, washing machine, DairyMilk, car etc? Sure. Until business created the want for a personal computer you didn’t want one. Was it greed of them to suggest to you that you might want to buy one. I don’t think so.
The question though is important. I would argue that companies should produce things which contribute to society. Their products are important. But unless they create in you the desire to buy it you won’t purchase it. In this case I would argue desire isn’t wrong. It’s not wrong to want to buy any number of things. But the problem is greed in our hearts. Sometimes companies feed off this very successfully. But a company can’t decide if you need another iPod or MacBook Air (which our minister seems to advertise alarmingly often), that’s your choice.
And just as a small aside sometimes God makes people incredibly waelthy materially. Therefore I don’t think it would be fair to say owning a lot is fundamentally wrong. However all through scripture there is also strong encouragement and command about stewarding well.
Go on, have a Coke. But just one.
p.s. Or what about a completely different desire. Is it fundamentally wrong to be attractive to the opposite sex? To create a desire in one’s partner?
You’re right, I don’t think that necessarily owning a lot of stuff is fundamentally wrong, but there is the further question of what you do with all that stuff and why you ended up with it in the first place. Owning 12 high spec sports cars just because you can? Or, more modestly, owning lots of pairs of shoes, because they look cool and you could afford them? I remember being challenged by Shane Claiborne to consider how many coats I had! Two, he seemed to suggest, is one too many when there are people around with none – I should be giving my spare one away. (I have to confess, I haven’t). But if we all lived like that, I guess consumerism would collapse. Perhaps not the worst thing!
Desire and greed are not quite the same, I know. But perhaps they lie on the same continuum, albeit at opposite ends.
A wee bit tangetially (sp?) there was a really interesting article in the Guardian’s G2 section this week, looking at behavioural economics, called ‘Why we buy what we buy’, if you’re interested. Bet you could guess I’d be a Guardian reader – apparently I’m a walking cliche of one!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2008/may/20/consumeraffairs.economics
I’m more of a Diet Coke girl myself, by the way.
PS. As for creating desire in one’s partner, reckon that can only be good. What about just wanting to be desirable, full stop? Not everyone has a partner. I guess I don’t think that’s wrong either, but maybe not something it’s helpful to spend to much time or energy on. Don’t know…
Was the Guardian article inspired by the book of the same title?
Don’t know, but the article features behavioural economist Dan Ariely, who has, according to the article, popularised behavioural economics with his book “Predictably Irrational”.
I found it really interesting, perhaps because it’s not a familiar field to me but the ideas make sense and are presented in a way that even a duffer like me can understand.
Just had a quick squizz on Amazon – is the book you mean “Why we buy: the science of shopping”?
i have that book if you want it.
Lincoln, an interesting post. A few questions to throw in, if I may?
Drucker writes “There is only one valid definition of business purpose: to create a customer” but I think that you can create a customer by selling duff goods to the customer (e.g. a cold coffee or a flat coke). Shouldn’t a business actually be looking to meet the utility that a customer is seeking?
Drucker also writes that “markets are not created by God”. But we know that all things that are good come from God (James 1:17) – does that imply that a market can never be good?
Drucker writes “in every case it is a business action that creates a customer” – but if you as a business create a product (e.g. vanilla coke) and no-one wants it you have no customer, and hence no market?
Drucker writes “The typical engineering definition of quality is something that is hard to do, is complicated, and costs a lot of money!” – I think this is a bit of a generalisation. Not all engineers would really aspire to have something that costs a lot of money. They generally, in my experience, want to design the best product they can. The challenge is that they find this does not meet the price point that the customer will pay for the utility of the product. But I don’t think they set out purposefully to make it expensive and is complicated. I think they set out to make the best product they can.
Oops, pressed submit too early. That’s the problem with watching Eurovision at the same time.
Drucker writes “And what the customer buys and considers value is never a product. It is always utility, that is, what a product or service does for him.” I actually think this is pretty spot on. Starbucks realised this by understanding that what the customer was buying was an emotional buzz, not a coffee. So what they were selling was an emotional experience. I sit on the boards of companies where we spend time talking of experiences and feelings and connection and not so much about the actual product. The product is a way to deliver the utility. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is a good way to see how there are differing levels of need and utility (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow’s_hierarchy_of_needs). However, think of something like Fairtrade – do I buy that (or you buy that) because of how it makes ME feel, or for the benefit to others? Drucker seems to allow for no selflessness in consuming.
Good post and I look forward to hearing how you work this out through 08/09. My impression of Drucker (having not read his material but been exposed to lots of people who did through all my studies) is that he was considered to be an expert but I think there are aspects of business in 2008 that it would be hard for him to have worked into much of his writing. E.g. globalisation, B2B web commerce, de-centralised organisations etc.
Selling coffee (good or bad) is not creating the customer. That is selling to the customer. Creating the customer refers to getting a person to the point where they are willing to be a customer.
The problem with Vanilla coke is that they did not create a market for it. If they had created a market for Vanilla coke it would have sold. No-one wants vanilla coke, they created a product for which there was not a market.
With fair trade you’re assuming that the only utility is good feelings.
On web b2b, glabalisation etc Drucker was ahead of his time. In “Post-Capitalist society” he writes The World is Flat basically. Drucker is much more useful than Friedman, partially becauase of the access he had. He had close relationships with presidents and prime ministers and so was actually part of the events that resulted in our flat world. TWIF is just a development of Drucker’s ideas.
As my heroes Mark and Mike write about TWIF:
“This will be the most influential business book of the first decade of the 21st century. Drucker is more powerful, and more helpful, but TWIF will be more talked about. You cannot be a professional manager and remain effective in today’s flat world without understanding the forces in this book. The forces discussed WILL impact your organization – being aware will make you better at what you do.”
Drucker saw The World is Flat from the other side (pre-199O) and predicted it acurately. If TWIF changed thez way you think… you ain’t seen nothing yet! Drucker will blow you away!
So a coffee business exists to create a want in me for a coffee? Or the utility a coffee provides? I don’t think so, I think a business exists to meet the utility I choose to have – you may provoke it, promote it, stimulate it, but until I, as an individual, CHOOSE to consume, you are nothing as a business.
Vanilla Coke was grim full stop. They couldn’t have created a market if they’d tried. And they did try.
On fairtrade, you’re assuming that good personal feelings or personal utility have to be present. You’re asserting that I can never do something where there is no personal utility for me. I can never be truly selfless. Which may be true!
On Drucker, I’ll take the same stance as I did on McLaren – until I’ve read it, I shouldn’t knock it….I’ve sat with 3000+ CEOs over the last decade, I can’t remember a single one advocating reading Drucker. Which is interesting given his rankings in book charts and management schools. Why do you think that is?
Did any of those CEOs recommend the bible?
lol, touche’! Actually some of them would have…..how you doing with McLaren?
I’m in the heart of european protestant leadership at the moment. please don’t mention mclaren. half the people here have read his book and written their own book to disagree. LOL