McDonalds Case

Part 1:

In the mid 1980's, London Greenpeace, a small activist group with ties too many campaigns on many social and environment issues, decided to focus their attention on McDonald's and use them as an example of a corporate giant that represents the bad side of business. During this time they protested McDonald's practices and handed out pamphlets displaying unethical acts which attacked numerous aspects of the corporate structure. There are five principal ethical issues presented through their protest which include environment issues, nutrition issues, recycling and waste issues, employment issues, and animal issues.

Ethical Issue #1: Environment Issues

London Greenpeace argues that McDonald's is a present factor whose business is a leading contributor for harming the environment. A critical argument they make is that manufacturing practices McDonald's partakes in is not only harming the environment but they also promote these detrimental factors. Issues such as the destruction of rainforests, producing millions of tons of packaging, global warming factors, destruction of the ozone, depletion of natural resources, and the effects their cattle ranching has on the environment are all key issues of protests and rallies.

Ethical Issue #2: Nutrition Issues

Activists argue that products McDonald's provides are a direct cause of many serious diseases humans face today such as cancer, heart disease, diabetes, and obesity. Essentially they categorize McDonald's as a promoter of premature deaths which are a result of misinformed advertisement of their products as notorious. They feel that opening up restaurants in hospitals, sporting events, or other venues where health is a characteristic is a misleading message they are sending to consumers. Another health issue they raise is that they are a leading cause to the decrease in fresh foods in an everyday diet and replacing them with processed foods. They are changing the eating habits of consumers which have serious consequences on an overall healthy lifestyle.

Ethical Issue #3: Recycling and Waste Issues

The ethical concern here is that McDonald's produce tons of packaging that generally only gets used for a minimal amount of time before it is thrown away which is affecting the environment. Activists argue that their effort to be as green as possible falls short of what they promote. McDonald's states that they use recycled paper in the construction of containers, but activists argue that in reality it is only a small percent that is recycled; not 100%. Because recycling efforts are minimal, stated by London Greenpeace, McDonalds is responsible for hundreds of square miles of forest destruction in order to produce the paper needed for a one year supply product.

Ethical Issue #4: Employment Issues

This issue stems from concerns that McDonalds employees more than a million employees for low wages and put in an environment that is not conducive for a healthy working structure. Arguments against the chain fear that they offer a lot of employment opportunities but in actuality they are taking advantage of high unemployment rates and individuals who are struggling to find efficient work. Because of a poor working environment, low wages, and long hours, they tend to have a high turnover rate. London Greenpeace feels this trend is created by poor treatment of current employees and that McDonalds makes negotiations by trade unions nearly impossible. They don't allow for representatives of their employees to express concerns over conditions and wages and the voice of team members is rarely recognized.

Ethical Issue #5: Animal Issues

One of the most sensitive ethical issues comes from the treatment of animals to produce the necessary products for McDonald's. McDonald's slaughters thousands of cows, chickens, and pigs each year to produce enough meat for their product lines. London Greenpeace argues that these animals sustain unnatural lives and suffer greatly for the short time they are alive. They are housed in poorly ventilated and small cages and their sole purpose of life is to grow to desired size before being euthanized. Animals are subject to torturous conditions until they are ultimately slaughtered in an unethical way.

Part 2:

Acting a as McDonald's manager and approached by a close friend who is questioning the validity of these ethical issues, my response in private for each would be as follows:

Ethical Issue #1

The issue of whether we at McDonald's are destructing the environment is a tough question to answer. Honestly, yes we are however it is no more than any other industry that utilizes large quantities of paper products or land for raising animals. Could we do a better job of minimizing the natural resources needed for our packaging; yes we probably could find a more sustainable measure. Maybe we could look into using new forms of packaging but this will most likely increase expenses which affects our bottom line and may not be a feasible option. I think that any company whose practices involve some form of manufacturing is adding to global warming effects so for activists to single us out is ridiculous. If they are going to come after us, they should be attacking everyone else as well including the government which destructs land for building and transportation purposes. I think that if our products were healthier or incorporated organic ingredients, they wouldn't focus as much on our destruction of rainforests or affects to the atmosphere. Since the perceptions of our products represent obesity, they are quick to put a bull's-eye on our backs.

Ethical Issue #2

I'm telling you this in confidence, but I do agree that our products, if used in excess of moderation, could cause unhealthy lifestyles. Yes our foods are high in fats and not too many of our options have any valuable nutrition factors. This is something we have recently been trying to incorporate into our product line but they just don't seem to be selling. People come to our restaurants for fast tasty food. It's no secret that our products are high in fat, but our customers don't care. We don't force them to use our products. Our products don't have an addictive characteristic that we exploit like cigarettes or alcohol. When it comes to our advertisement, we probably could send a better message and not portray them as healthy. My suggestion would be that we don't even market our healthy choices to well. When someone sees one of our commercials for our healthy breakfast