Fast Food and Sustainable Development: McDonalds Case Study - Essay Example

Fast Food and Sustainable Development: McDonald’s Case Study Section February 2007 Fast Foodand Sustainable Development: McDonald’s Case Study Introduction Unknown to people, the concept and practices of sustainable development had already existed since thousands of years ago. It had been an integral part of man’s ancestral beliefs such that it has become their key survival mechanism. But as time passed, man has been too engrossed with growth, progress and technology that he had basically forgotten the other aspects of development aside from making profit. And this has been the underlying concern, above all aspects, in the issue of food security. In today’s rapidly paced society, the issue of food security does not principally rely on today’s end producers, the agricultural farmers, but on the powerful food chain firms that has continued to make a worldwide phenomenon on their fast food services. Society needs to be alarmed at this inevitable scenario due to their significant global impact, particularly in the environmental and social implications. Aside from food sovereignty, this issue generates a fundamental challenge in the field of business ethics and practice for generating tangible and concrete policies, implementing guidelines and methodologies that other business establishments should enact, follow and execute. Sustainable Development Sustainable development is defined as development “that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generation to meet their own needs” (WCED, 1987). Hence, development should predominantly consider the following dimensions, as applied in a business or food chain establishment (Zamora, et. al, 2002): a) Economic viability – the business establishment should meet the needs of its customers and employees while being able to make profit at the same time. b) Ecological soundness – aside from catering to the needs of the customers, it should also consider if any crucial aspect of the business, especially in production, would severely damage the environment. c) Social just and humane – any business endeavour should respect the dignity and rights, not only of its consumers and end-users but as well as rights of its employees. Social responsibility must be implemented. d) Culturally appropriate – products and services being provided should be in accordance with the taste, needs and beliefs of its consumers. Furthermore, business establishments should respect the location- and context-specific cultures of their diverse end-clients. e) Grounded on holistic science – firms and employees alike should scientifically and cautiously consider the interrelationships and interaction of all the aforementioned aspects. In the long run, multi-national companies, firms and the like would not only benefit in this endeavour. Consumers, and the community to which it belongs, should equally benefit from the former. There are many other definitions that encompass the concept of sustainable development from various literatures. Nevertheless, its basic premise holds true for all businesses, regardless of span, longevity, and location among others. McLibel Case: What’s wrong with McDonalds? The libel case filed by McDonald’s Corporation against London Greenpeace supporters Helen Steel and David Morris, commonly known as the McLibel case, in 1990 created quite a stir in the global business community. It started off with Steel and Morris’ distribution of pamphlets that criticising McDonalds (Wikipedia, 2007). Using four of the five dimensions of sustainable development, the following enumerates the criticisms raised against the company: Economic viability Indeed, the company had made, and has continued to make, considerable profit from the fast food business. However, it failed to consider the economic viability of its loyal employees. In order to keep high profit margins, the company gave out low employment wages. There was no available or added compensation for those employees who work on an overtime basis, thus resulted to understaffing. Eventually, workers were required to work more flexibly, on a multi-tasking basis, making them susceptible to work-related accidents and unfavourable working conditions. Furthermore, the company had been indirectly robbing the poor with their local food needs. Instead of raising an adequate number of livestock for production, farmers were forced to meet the demands of the company at the expense of their usual production of cash crops and other farm needs. Ecological soundness The demand generated by the company for meat products gravely affected local food needs. As more and more people eat meat, more wastes were produced from livestock and its meat by-products. Aside from the wastes produced, the demand for livestock production alters the land area allocated for forests and agronomic and horticultural crop production. Hence, more trees were cut while fewer crops were produced. As indicated in the What’s Wrong with McDonalds? pamphlet, “McDonald’s are the world’s largest user of beef.” Beef production would not be complete if not for the methane gas emitted by these animals, consequently contributing to the global warming crisis. Moreover, the wastes and litter produced by each McDonald’s food chain significantly contributes to land pollution and aggravation of toxic waste contamination in landfill sites. Social just and humane To produce every beef patty to every McDonald’s food chain, numerous animals were “inhumanely slaughtered” so as to meet customer demands. As contested by the pamphlet, “we have the choice to eat meat or not, but the billions of animals massacred for food each year have no choice at all.” Because of the no overtime pay policy, the company had high staff turnover. This clearly indicated that it had less regard for the very people who work and directly communicate with the customers, the service crew members. Consequently, these employees were compelled to smile while greeting the customers. Aside from censoring and silencing those who attempt to speak out against the company, McDonald’s had also attempted to cover up a number of relevant documents on the libel case. Helen Steele and Dave Morris were even denied their right to a jury. Culturally appropriate As previously mentioned, the need to cater to the beef production demands of McDonald’s enabled numerous farmers to alter their usual agricultural production practices, basically for more profit. From being a vegetable eating nation (in some parts of the country), people gradually shifted towards being a meat-eating nation. The company had even labelled their food as nutritious. With their high fat, low fibre and vitamins diet, adults became more prone to heart disease, cancer, diabetes and other diseases. On the other hand, children became more prone to hyperactivity and malnutrition due to the chemical additives included in McDonald’s recipes. Incidentally, a case of food poisoning, which seriously led to kidney failure, was linked to McDonald’s in 1991. To make matters worse, people also became more prone to mad cow disease. McDonald’s Response Since the McLibel case, McDonald’s had not been commenting on its losses. It also attempted to cease all the pamphlets distributed by London Greenpeace, much to their disappointment as the pamphlet has been translated into over 26 languages all over the world. In the global scale, the company did not make any significant efforts to change its products and services offerings. It was only until the release of the documentary “Super Size Me,” an American film directed, produced and starred by Morgan Spurlock in 2004, that the company seriously considered its services on a long-term basis (Wikipedia, 2007). In a giant move towards change, McDonald’s phased out its Supersize meal option and started catering healthier food items. Conversely, the company denied having changed its usual customary products due to the documentary. They also issued a press release critically disparaging the accounts made by Spurlock’s documentary while categorically blaming the director for being “a part of the problem and not the solution.” By April 2006, the British newspaper The Guardian sent out free copies of the file via DVD (Wikipedia, 2007). At the back of the film, the company placed a full-page advertisement, including their telephone number, for any customer complaints. Corporate Social Responsibility Financially speaking, McDonald’s rightfully established itself in the fast food business; as of to date, the company has managed to scaled-out and scaled-up in almost every country in the world. The key to its success is not basically the food it offers but the company logo that greets every potential customer. The red and yellow colour has become very inviting or seductive to the young and the old, enabling them to become at home to McDonald’s. In the social aspect, McDonald’s has made itself part of every society and culture there is in the world. Its fast-paced food services have enabled social scientists and theorists to attribute man’s rapidly transcending society to McDonald’s, which is now commonly known as the “McDonaldization Theory.” So deep is its impact on society that even children who can hardly speak can only utter, among other words, the company’s first two syllables “MAC-DO.” Despite efforts in aligning its goals and objectives with the fundamentals and principles of sustainable development, McDonald’s has yet to fully implement such changes in the global scale. The company may have initiated changes in the fast food industry, especially in developed countries but it is still a big question mark whether it would also be implementing changes in developing and Third World countries. As of the moment, there have been no reported cases in Third World areas that any McDonald’s stores have changed its menu as that of the United States market. Like any self-respecting company, McDonald’s annual report section on corporate responsibility does not delve deeper than having a commitment to the very people to which they cater to. Evidences suggest that the company has been conducting community services and other non-profit activities for the poor in various localities as part of their corporate social responsibility. However, they fail to respond to the direct needs of society. Rather than giving alms to the poor and having too much focus on economic gains, McDonald’s has failed to respond to other aspects of social responsibility, particularly on the legal, ethical and philanthropic sense. Legality-wise, it may be unjust to assume that the company do not obey the law. However, it may also be unfair to generalise that McDonald’s play by the rules of the game. Remember in the case study, McDonald’s threatened with legal action those organisations who came against their way, to the extent of forcing them to apologise to avoid any risk of going to trial (London Greenpeace, 1991). On the ethical side, McDonald’s also failed to seriously consider the social and ecological aspect of their products and services. They failed to carry out their obligation to do what is right for the people who work for them and to those they provide for. As previously mentioned, the employees were underpaid and overworked to carry out their jobs. Meanwhile, customers were short changed when they were made to believe the food they consume were nutritious. Environmentally speaking, McDonald’s continuous use of beef and production of tonnes of waste materials rapidly affects global climate change. Their failure to respond and comply with the Kyoto Protocol simply indicates the company’s lack of clear efforts to reduce carbon emissions. Indeed, there is a need for McDonald’s to carefully reconsider their social responsibility to the very people to whom they owe their success. The need to voluntary comply with diverse social pressures has been present more than a decade ago. It is a great challenge to undergo such feat; nevertheless McDonald’s is ethically bound to take immediate action on social responsibility (Eames, 2007). There is no particular ethical discourse or theory that could transform, if not on a permanent basis, McDonald’s into a socially responsible business organisation. All approaches in making effective decisions are complementary rather than mutually exclusive with each other, considering that the company caters to a wide array of cultures, tastes, needs and wants. In this regard, it would be safe to assume a middle ground between the issue of absolutism and relativism for its own sake. It must be noted that what may be true for the American market may not be entirely applicable to the European or Asian market. Hence in making sound business decisions, McDonald’s food chains should each consider their moral response to corporate social responsibility. The garment industry’s Weizhi Group has been successful in embedding value-based corporate mission to its employees (Strategic Direction, 2002). Its four basic principles: kindness, sincerity, wisdom and diligence have been instrumental for them to be a part of the top 100 enterprises in their levelled playing field, with annual sales values of more than $72 million. Hence, there is no doubt that the fast food industry could also do the same (Ip, 2002). Sustainability of the Fast Food Industry Despite the tremendous waste and loopholes in the fast food industry, sustainable development is not a far cry to be grasped. Like the Weizhi Group, this industry needs a strong initiative that would serve as a catalyst for other fast food companies to follow. It is never too late to act now, than never to have attempted at all. Otherwise, the future generations will suffer the consequences today’s present actions. The agriculture, architecture and even the technological industry has been making step by step efforts in attaining environmental and social value, while being able to make considerable profit gains. In this regard, the triple bottom line or basically the concepts of sustainable development, as previously emphasized in the beginning of the paper, may also hold true for the fast food industry (Gladwin, et. al., 1995). Taking the road less travelled by the aforementioned industries, McDonald’s and other fast food chains still has a fighting chance towards attaining, not only economic but most especially environmental and social value (Eames, 2007). Bibliography Adelle, Camilla, Hertin, Julia and Jordan, Andrew. (2004) Sustainable Development ’outside’ the European Union: What Role for Impact Assessment? CSERGE Working Paper EDM 05-08. Eames, M. (2007) Lecture 3: Corporate Responsibility. PLEASE PROPERLY CITE THIS ONE. Eames, M. (2007). Lecture 4: Ethical Theory and Decision Making. PLEASE PROPERLY CITE THIS ONE. Gladwin, T. N., Kennelly, J. J., and Krause, T. S. (1995) Shifting Paradigms for Sustainable Development: Implications for Management Theory and Research. Academy of Management Review, Volume 20 Number 4 p. 874-907. Ip, P.-K. (2002), The Weizhi Group of Xian: a chinese virtuous corporation. Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 35 No.1, pp.15. London Greenpeace. (1991) What’s Wrong With McDonald’s? US McLibel Support Campaign. PO Box 62, Craftsbury, VT 05826-0062, USA. Macfarlane, Bruce. (2001) Developing Reflective Students: Evaluating the Benefits of Learning Logs within a Business Ethics Programme. Teaching Business Ethics 5, p. 375–387. Strategic Direction. (2002) McDonalds jumps on the CSR bandwagon. Strategic Direction. Volume 18 Number 9 2002 pp. 8-11. Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. (2007) McLibel case. Wikipedia. Retrieved February 2007 from website: . Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. (2007) Super Size Me. Wikipedia. Retrieved February 2007 from website: . World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987) Our Common Future. Oxford University Press, New York. Zamora, O. B. (2002) Sustainable Agriculture. University of the Philippines Los Baños, College, Laguna, Philippines. Please note that the first part of the paper focused initially on the concept of sustainable development, and how it relates to fast food businesses. I think the paper does not need to emphasize the triple bottom line as sustainable development was already emphasized at the beginning of the text. Read More