Mcdonald’s and the Environmental Defense Fund Essay Example

an alternative to the traditional approach of criticizing and admonishing, as proposed by Fred Krupp, the leader of the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) and an early advocate for eco-business collaboration (Killingsworth & Palmer, 1996; Slovic, 1996).

Although eco-alliances have been mentioned in the literature on environmental management and green marketing, they have not yet been explored in terms of business communication. This paper investigates the rhetorical features of an initial green partnership, specifically the landmark alliance between McDonald's Corporation, the top quick-service restaurant chain, and EDF, a prominent environmental organization in the United States. McDonald's and EDF established a collaborative task force that publicly published a comprehensive study of McDonald's packaging and materials management practices over a period of six months.

The partnership between EDF and McDonald's is famous for several reasons. One notable event was when, three months into the study, McDonald's made a sudden decision to stop using polystyrene boxes (also known as clamshells) to package their sandwiches. This change was influenced by pressure from EDF. Despite the attention this event received, there were other significant and less disputed efforts undertaken, such as a 42-step action plan aimed at reducing McDonald's environmental footprint.

In my research, I aim to put the packaging decision into a broader perspective by examining its relationship to the partnership and McDonald's previous efforts in environmental advocacy. Additionally, I examine the McDonald's-EDF partnership within the larger context of environmental politics during the late 1980s and early 1990s, a period when nonprofit environmental organizations took on a significant role. My analysis concentrates on the symbolic and communicative aspects of the partnership.

Relying on public relations material from McDonald's and EDF, along with news accounts,

this text explores the different strategies employed by McDonald's to position itself as environmentally friendly, as well as the approach taken by EDF to promote collaboration between environmentalists and businesses. The aim is to analyze the various rhetorical techniques used in constructing a "green" image. The text is titled "Green Partnerships: A New Kind of Alliance."

The alliances formed between environmentalist groups and businesses in recent years demonstrate a shift in the historically adversarial relationships between key stakeholders (businesses, environmentalists, government) when it comes to environmental issues. These new relationships have been hailed as groundbreaking and innovative by experts. They differ from previous charitable or commercial relationships as they involve the expertise of the environmental group and their active participation in joint problem solving and strategic decision making alongside the corporate partner.

When EDF reached out to McDonald's, the company was facing criticism for its packaging practices. EDF saw this as an opportunity to partner with McDonald's due to its influential position, previous issues with waste management, and the symbolic significance of waste management in environmental discussions. EDF believed that collaborating with McDonald's would not only allow for environmental progress, but also provide a prominent platform to test their innovative corporate partnership approach to solving environmental problems. Likewise, McDonald's saw the mainstream reputation of EDF as appealing and saw potential in aligning with the organization.

The text briefly summarizes McDonald's previous unsuccessful attempts to communicate with the more extreme Citizens Clearinghouse

for Hazardous Waste (CCHW), an environmental organization involved in mobilizing grassroots campaigns against the company. These attempts are discussed in Gifford's 1991 publication. Before delving into the partnership between McDonald's and EDF, this section also provides a brief overview of both companies' histories. In the 1980s, businesses driven by consumer demand became increasingly vulnerable to public pressure as environmental consciousness grew among the general population. Livesey (1993a) explores this phenomenon further on pages 2-4.

Greenpeace and CCHW, environmental organizations, expressed their disapproval of plastic materials, specifically pointing out McDonald's use of plastic clamshell sandwich boxes. As a result, McDonald's became a major consumer of polystyrene in the United States. This drew continuous criticism from ecological groups (Livesey, 1993a, p. 4). Nevertheless, during the late 1980s, McDonald's implemented numerous eco-friendly measures within its operations in the US. These actions received significant publicity (see Figure 1).

McDonald's implemented several measures to reduce consumption and promote recycling. This included using lighter weight paper for straws, paper bags, and other items. In 1987, the company switched from polystyrene to plastic foam that used hydrocarbon blowing agents instead of ozone-layer destroying CFCs. A pilot program in 1989 involved recycling plastic clamshells in 450 New England stores. The "McRecycle" program was launched in April 1990 with a budget of $100 million, allocated towards purchasing recycled materials for restaurant construction and operations. McDonald's also focused on proactive public relations campaigns in 1989 and 1990 to strengthen its environmental management practices. The centerpiece of these efforts was the 1989 Annual Report which emphasized the importance of the natural environment.

McDonald's distributed in-store flyers to educate customers about their environmental management practices, policies, philosophies, and stances on

specific matters such as rainforest beef and the ozone problem. Additionally, their public relations department provided brochures addressing environmental issues, including packaging. McDonald's also partnered with different environmental and nonprofit organizations (such as the World Wildlife Fund and the Smithsonian Institution) to create educational materials for elementary school students regarding the environment. Nevertheless, despite these endeavors, the company encountered continuous criticism.

In 1967, the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) was founded as a grassroots organization with the main objective of legally challenging the use of DDT on Long Island. Over time, EDF grew into one of the prominent U.S. organizations called the Group of 10 (Clair, Milliman, & Mitroff, 1995, p. 168; Dowie, 1995).

By then, EDF had a budget of around $16 million (Reinhardt, 1992, p. 6) and had expanded its workforce to include 110 lawyers, economists, and scientists. The organization proudly boasted a membership exceeding 200,000 individuals (Livesey, 1993a, p.14). Additionally," a graduate from Harvard Business School acted as" "the chairman" "of its board of trustees."(Reinhardt,""

)

EDF, having established itself as a technical expert through its scientific culture, embarked on forming coalitions with corporate America to bring about environmental change. This approach, championed by Executive Director Fred Krupp in the late 1980s, drew criticism from more radical groups such as CCHW, who accused EDF of becoming too cozy with corporate interests and being too compromising. Before partnering with McDonald's, EDF had engaged in various collaborative projects with organizations ranging from the World Bank to the electric utility industry and western water users. Additionally, similar to McDonald's, EDF had previously participated in multi-party negotiations organized by the Coalition of Northeast Governors for waste management guidelines in

New England. Hence, EDF had already developed expertise in the field of packaging and waste management and had an existing working relationship with representatives from McDonald's prior to the formation of the task force (EDF Fact Sheet, August 1, 1990).

The McDonald's-EDF Alliance can be divided into three phases. First, the partnership was announced on August 1, 1990. Then, McDonald's decided to abandon its clamshell packaging on November 1, 1990. Finally, the joint task force study was released on April 16, 1991. The partnership resulted from a year of dialogue initiated by EDF with the company (Reinhardt, 1992, p. 9).

The group consisted of representatives from McDonald's, EDF, and The Perseco Company, which is McDonald's exclusive packaging supplier. Overseeing the group were Shelby Yastrow, General Counsel and Senior Vice President of Environmental Affairs at McDonald's, and Fred Krupp, Executive Director of EDF (McDonald's Corporation & EDF Press Release, August 1, 1990). The alliance was established through a formal written agreement (McDonald's ; EDF Final Report, 1991, pp. 5-6) that outlined the topics the task force would address and established certain guidelines.

The agreement was designed to anticipate conflict and included an escape clause in case of disagreement. It also protected the parties' rights to publicly express their differences and ensured their financial independence. Furthermore, it allowed each organization to pursue their own public relations and advocacy agendas on the environment while working together on the task force. However, McDonald's was not allowed to promote the task force in its marketing materials without prior approval from EDF, while EDF did not have such restrictions.

McDonald's Yastrow and EDF's Krupp held a joint press conference at the National Press Club

in Washington, DC, to announce the "Landmark Task Force." They committed to conducting a six-month study and publicly releasing recommendations and results. McDonald's agreed to follow the recommendations "where feasible." However, on November 1, 1990, McDonald's yielded to pressure from the EDF and chose to discontinue its clamshell sandwich packaging, only three months into the partnership.

McDonald's decided against expanding its New England plastic recycling program nationwide, generating mixed reactions. A poll by Advertising Age in January 1991 indicated that McDonald's was seen as more environmentally responsible compared to its competitors, though none of them were highly regarded. Nonetheless, McDonald's decision faced criticism from three groups: environmentalists who believed both paper and plastic were harmful to the environment; advocates for plastics and recycling who accused McDonald's of bowing to consumer pressure and making an incorrect choice for the environment; and parts of the business press who saw McDonald's sudden change in direction as succumbing to strong-arming by the Environmental Defense Fund. In response, the plastics industry launched a comprehensive advertising and advocacy campaign supporting plastic, which was deemed insufficient by the media.

EDF justified its decision on scientific and economic grounds, responding to criticism through various means of communication such as letters to the editor (Denison, 1990b), op-ed pieces (Denison, 1990c), and circulated memoranda to "interested parties" (Denison, 1990a, p. 1; see also Denison, Prince & Ruston, 1990). In April 1991, McDonald's and EDF joint task force revealed their final outcome which included a waste reduction policy and a comprehensive action plan consisting of 42 initiatives. The task force effectively implemented numerous significant environmental improvements.

In the past, corporate packaging decisions at McDonald's were based on quality and

cost criteria. However, with the integration of environmental criteria, the alliance between McDonald's and environmental groups received positive feedback from the media. This story was widely circulated over several years and was seen as a milestone in changing the relationship between business and environmental groups. Various sources in green business literature also mention this partnership. Additionally, I will analyze McDonald's 1989 Annual Report, speeches by McDonald's Vice President of Environmental Affairs Yastrow and EDF Executive Director Krupp, the announcement of the packaging switch, and the Final Report of the joint task force. The case will also be discussed in detail.

McDonald's 1989 Annual Report aims to control the public debate about the company's role as a responsible corporate citizen and presents itself as environmentally friendly. It falls under the category of epideictic advocacy, which is commonly used in corporate issue management campaigns to establish and reinforce value premises. This type of rhetoric is based on shared assumptions and draws on cultural values and beliefs. Due to the growing concern for the environment, McDonald's positions itself as environmentally conscious and socially and economically responsible. The media describes the 1989 Annual Report as resembling an Audubon Society brochure rather than a financial statement.

The report, titled McDonald's Annual Report, 1989, incorporates elements of nature pictures, poetry, and quotes from notable figures in the environmental movement such as Gro Brundtland. These elements are integrated throughout the report alongside product and financial information. The cover of the report features a four-page foldout picture showcasing the Northwest American forest, accompanied by a quote from Chief Seattle regarding man's proper relationship with the earth. The main focus of the report is dedicated to

discussing the environmental challenges that lie ahead, with this discussion being contained within a 10-page supplement.

The supplement emphasizes the importance of dialogue, rational discourse, pragmatic solutions, individual effort, and shared social responsibility for the earth. These themes are initially mentioned in the shareholders' letter. The letter states that by working together with people in all our business locations, we can address the environmental challenges faced by the world. It is also asserted that each person has the ability to make a difference. This can be accomplished by understanding the problems, discussing potential options, and creating practical and cost-effective solutions. Additionally, it is stressed that preserving and enhancing our environment's integrity benefits everyone.

That's good for us and good for everyone that we do business with. We are concerned about the future of our children and the world we live in. We invite your careful reading and your comments. (p. 2)

This letter is significant in terms of both its content and its exclusions. It engages the reader, promoting dialogue, while also leaving uncertainty regarding the company's responsibility and intentions. For instance, what will be done with any comments provided by readers? Who should readers address their comments to? How should a discussion on the environment be coordinated?

The question arises as to who is being invited to participate in the dialogue. McDonald's attempt to appeal to rational discourse hides the fact that its main strategy is to avoid difficult issues by suggesting a similarity between "people's" values, beliefs, and hopes with McDonald's own. However, a rational argument would challenge whether a corporation as immense as McDonald's can make the same impact as other individuals. Additionally, how will preserving

the environment benefit McDonald's in particular (or conversely, what negative consequences are left unmentioned), as opposed to other "people"?

In this passage, we observe an instance of what Cheney (1992) has labeled as the "decentering" of the individual, specifically, the corporate identity. This is accomplished through corporate language that complicates concepts like authorship, voice, attribution, and responsibility (p. 176). Furthermore, this language downplays McDonald's role as a multinational corporation with significant influence on the environment, often surpassing and directing the actions of countless individual "natural persons." The letter to shareholders previews a crucial rhetorical approach employed in the environmental supplement of the report, which I will discuss in the following section.

The supplement included in the Annual Report of 1989 consists of various sections. These sections include a response to a letter from an 11-year-old boy named Dan Getty, who urges McDonald's to take responsible action (pp. 7-8). There is also an overview of McDonald's philosophy and historical commitment to environmental responsibility, including their founder's directive to clean up litter around their restaurants (p. 9). Additionally, there are three sections that provide facts and expert opinions on solid waste management, resource conservation, and recycling (pp. 10-15). Finally, there is a collective call for assistance in addressing environmental challenges (p. 6).

The response letter to Dan Getty exemplifies McDonald's use of rhetorical strategies to establish a connection with their customers and the public. First, McDonald's portrays itself as an innocent and inexperienced individual. Similar to Dan Getty and people of all ages, McDonald's acknowledges its inquiry about environmental issues and recognizes the complexity of finding solutions (p. 7). It refuses to be passive in the face of complexity, stating

that it is easy for individuals to deny responsibility for these intricate forces.

But then we have to ask, 'Who is?' "(p. 8). At the same time, it warns us: It is important "to do what is environmentally sound when the responsible course of action becomes clear" (p. 7). The origin of clarity and action remains ambiguous. Furthermore, McDonald's portrays itself as part of a community of earth stewards: "Each of us, aware of what is at stake, must commit to actions that will preserve and improve the environment that we are entrusted with for future generations. . . . You can count on us" (p. 8).

The request for help from the boy at McDonald's has been transformed into a call for collective action, as emphasized by James Lovelock, the creator of Gala theory. He stated that "It's personal action that counts" (quoted in McDonald's, 1989, p. 8). This echoes the statement made by Ray Kroc, the founder of McDonald's, who said "None of us is as good as all of us" (quoted in Annual Report, 1989, p. 8). McDonald's urges individuals to take personal responsibility and align themselves with the company. By positioning itself on equal footing with an eleven-year-old boy, McDonald's aims to eliminate power dynamics and foster a sense of unity. Through rhetorical strategies like using imagery instead of logical arguments or debates (Cheney, 1992, p.174), McDonald’s equates its corporate identity with that of natural persons. This implies that people working at McDonald's are no different from others and must also take action to protect the environment. While employees at McDonald’s may have differing views on environmental matters, they are also part of

a larger corporate entity.

In this corporate writing, the dual nature of McDonald's is explored, highlighting both the distinctions and tensions that exist. However, there is a contrasting narrative in the next section of the annual report supplement, which focuses on McDonald's as a responsible corporate citizen seeking expert advice. To defend its environmental record, McDonald's provides a list of specific actions it has taken to manage waste and conserve resources through strategies like reducing, reusing, and recycling materials. The company also references experts who endorse its stance on plastic packaging and emphasize the relatively small impact of the entire quick-service restaurant industry on America's waste problem.

The text also highlights the NIMBY syndrome, also known as the "Not In My Back Yard" syndrome, critiquing individuals in McDonald's communities who opposed the presence of company incinerators nearby. This opposition is seen as a hindrance to responsible waste solutions (Annual Report, 1989, p. 11). Although the narrative attempts to justify McDonald's waste management practices, it indirectly shields certain fundamental values of the business from scrutiny, including convenience (throw-away) and affordable mass consumerism.

Within its framework, the text narrowly focuses on the problem of the environment as one that can be addressed through technology and personal habits, reflecting American individualistic beliefs. In the conclusion, McDonald's reinforces the importance of individual actions such as planting trees, conserving energy, and recycling clamshells.

Despite describing itself as a proactive corporate actor and actively seeking collaboration with individuals, public officials, other companies, and the communities it serves, McDonald's role as a leader or follower is uncertain. To better understand this ambiguity, it is important to consider the company's annual report in relation to

external political pressures it faced at the time. In the 1980s, McDonald's encountered various challenges such as potential local laws and lawsuits aiming to limit the use of plastic packaging, protests outside its stores, and grassroots movements.

CCHW, a group opposing McDonald's, has launched a campaign called "Ronald McToxic" where they cleverly appropriated the company's mascot, Ronald McDonald. This campaign aimed to portray Ronald as a symbol of betrayal and doom, effectively undermining McDonald's friendly and fun image. The company was infuriated by this tactic. In addition to CCHW, other radical groups also participated in a children's campaign where they mailed used clamshells to McDonald's headquarters, successfully involving children in the cause. The focus of the campaign shifted from the food product itself to the packaging issue.

The annual report of McDonald's presents the company as willing to collaborate, but in reality, it had already taken a confrontational stance. Its responses were ad hoc, reactive, and defensive, aligning with the traditional command-and-control paradigm. The report can be seen as an attempt to symbolically achieve what was lacking in reality. McDonald's uses language to regain control and depoliticize environmental issues by presenting them as personal and part of a universal goal to protect the environment. It promotes individual actions as alternatives to political ones, empowering individuals through actions like turning off lights or planting trees. It is important to distinguish McDonald's goal of "preserving and enhancing the integrity of the environment" for the benefit of everyone from the market-based rhetoric of environmentalism. The overall benefits of a healthy environment differ from specific economic advantages like cost savings or increased sales that result from environmental management programs.

McDonald's spokespersons

claimed that market research results showed no impact on customers' behaviors due to environmental awareness, despite McDonald's environmental initiatives (Yastrow, August 1, 1990, Press Conference). Therefore, this contradicts the concept of market-based environmentalism and aligns more with the traditional approach where corporations oppose restrictive legislation and view their environmental efforts as general good citizenship and corporate social responsibility.

At this point, we can take a different viewpoint on McDonald's. According to Weick (1979), businesses and other institutional actors "enact" the environments they engage in, being both subjects and objects of their own perceptions (Weick, 1979, p. 165). Eventually, they encounter difficulties resulting from their own enactments (p. 167). This is particularly evident in large organizations. As McDonald's positioned itself as "green," it had to address environmental issues influenced by its operations more and more.

McDonald's' efforts in recycling, resource reduction, incineration, and similar initiatives were not just symbolic. The company was actively engaged in promoting eco-friendly practices and promoting a positive environmental impact. This also opened up possibilities for dialogue with EDF. During the press conference in August 1990 where the partnership between McDonald's and EDF was announced, Krupp and Yastrow delivered prepared statements. They were then followed by a question-and-answer session with the press.

The partners in this situation have different approaches in how they present themselves publicly. Krupp begins the press conference by scolding America for being the world's largest producer of waste. He acknowledges that McDonald's is part of the problem but also differentiates between corporate and individual responsibility. He emphasizes that EDF is morally superior and committed to changing wasteful behavior. Krupp asserts that America can no longer be a throwaway society

and expresses determination to see McDonald's and the restaurant industry as a whole, including individuals, make fundamental changes in their operations. Moreover, Krupp takes credit for EDF's leadership role in initiating this partnership.

It is unclear who is included in the "we" when he states, "We're not just talking about fundamental changes in the way one corporation does business, we're talking about substantially reducing the amount of trash 22 million people throw away every day." It is uncertain whether he is referring to EDF and McDonald's as a rhetorical community, or EDF and the American public. It is also possible that he is speaking solely on behalf of EDF. This type of rhetoric, resembling a subtle form of a jeremiad, aligns with earlier environmentalists (Slovic, 1996) and reflects Krupp's personal experience from the 1970s.

In discussing market environmentalism, Krupp and others from EDF (such as Golfman, as quoted in Coddington, 1993) reject the act of "preaching" (p. 186) in certain settings. They seem to understand that the approach taken by scientists and consensus builders in the market environmentalism movement of the 1980s is not applicable here (see Killingsworth & Palmer, 1996, pp. 34-35). Interestingly, Krupp shifts to a more confrontational style of rhetoric when initiating a collaboration.

McDonald's, as a corporate leader, receives both praise and criticism. Krupp emphasizes this in his speech by stating that McDonald's, being the top player in their industry, has the potential to initiate change. He suggests that it is time for McDonald's to prioritize environmental sustainability, transforming itself from a leader in the restaurant industry to a leader in environmental practices. This type of transformation surpasses what an individual like 11-year-old Dan

Getty can accomplish. The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) aims to guide McDonald's in achieving this reform.

After adopting a morally superior stance, Krupp shifts towards the idea of collaboration, stating, "You have a waste problem. Let's work together to find a solution." Krupp then employs the confident language of an expert, discussing innovative and technologically advanced environmental remedies. This represents the perspective of market environmentalism. However, amidst this discourse, a contradicting voice emerges declaring, "EDF will not accept any monetary contributions from McDonald's... We will persistently engage in legal battles regarding solid waste problems nationwide. In fact, we are always prepared to exert significant force."

However, there are also occasions when even formidable adversaries should engage in dialogue. "Krupp emphasizes the importance of EDF's financial autonomy, a concern that has troubled previous green partnerships.