DOCSLIB.ORG

Mclibel Case

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Mclibel Case McLibel case The McLibel case is the colloquial term for McDonald's Restaurants v Morris & Steel, a long-running English court action for libel filed by McDonald's Corporation against environmental activists Helen Steel and David Morris (often referred to as "The McLibel Two") over a pamphlet critical of the company. The original case, considered by many scholars to be a Strategic lawsuit against public participation, lasted seven years, making it the longest-running court action in English history. Although McDonald's had technically won two separate hearings of the case in the English courts, the partial nature of the victory and drawn-out litigation has turned the case into a matter of serious embarrassment for the company. Because of this, McDonald's has repeatedly announced that it has no plans to collect the £40,000 it was awarded by the courts. Since then, certain aspects of the trial have been declared by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) to be in violation of the Convention on Human Rights and on 15 February 2005, the pair's 20-year battle (and 11-year court battle) with the company concluded when the ECHR ruled that the original case had breached Article 6 (right to a fair trial) and Article 10 (right to freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights and ordered that the UK government pay the McLibel couple £57,000 in compensation. History Beginning in 1986, "London Greenpeace", a small environmental campaigning group (not to be confused with the larger Greenpeace International organisation, which they declined to join as they saw it being too "centralized and mainstream for their tastes"), distributed a pamphlet entitled What’s wrong with McDonald’s: Everything they don’t want you to know. This publication made a number of allegations against McDonald's, including that the corporation sells unhealthy food; exploits its work force; practices unethical marketing of its products, especially towards children; is cruel to animals; needlessly uses up resources; contributes to poverty in the Third World by forcing peasants either to leave their land in favour of export crops which could satisfy McDonald's needs, or to convert their land to raise cattle; creates pollution with its packaging; and is at least partly responsible for destroying the South American rain forests. Before McDonald's responded, the pamphlet was regarded as something of a failure. Now, though, the pamphlet has been translated into over twenty-six languages. Original case In 1990, McDonald's responded by bringing libel proceedings against five London Greenpeace supporters, Paul Gravett, Andrew Clarke and Jonathan O'Farrell, as well as Steel and Morris, for distributing the pamphlet on the streets of London. The case was assigned to Judge Rodger Bell. Although none of these individuals was alleged to be the author of the pamphlet, and the leaflets were distributed in a number of other countries, the group faced large financial penalties and a difficult court battle unless they retracted and apologised for its content and ceased its distribution. Under English law, the burden of proving (on balance of probability) the literal truth of each and every disparaging statement is on the defendant. For a number of years, McDonald's was thus perceived to have been able to use the English libel laws to prevent public criticism being made against them. During the 1980s, the company threatened to sue more than fifty organisations, including Channel 4 television and several major publications. Because of such precedents, and because of the considerable financial and legal resources McDonald's could bring to bear, three of the charged individuals (Gravett, Clarke and O'Farrell) felt that they had no choice but to apologise as demanded; McDonald's typically uses this libel tactic in the United Kingdom, and settles for a formal apology in court or an informal one. Steel and Morris, on the other hand, refused to back down and decided to fight the case. However, the two had no formal post-secondary school education, and few financial resources; Morris was an out-of-work postal employee from Tottenham and Steel a community gardener for Haringey Borough Council. Furthermore, they were denied Legal Aid by the courts on the basis that it was not policy for libel cases. Although the pair were deemed no legal match for McDonald's enormous legal assets, they represented themselves, receiving much free legal advice, and doing enormous amounts of research in their spare time; they would eventually call 180 witnesses to prove their assertions about food poisoning, unpaid overtime, misleading claims about how much McDonald's recycled, and even about how McDonald's hired "corporate spies sent to infiltrate the ranks of London Greenpeace". McDonald's spent millions of pounds, while the protesters had £30,000 raised from public donations. The lack of funds meant Morris and Steel were not able to call all the witnesses they wanted, especially witnesses from South America who would have testified in support of the claims about the destruction of the rainforest. A major mistake by McDonald's and their lawyers when preparing the case was asserting that all claims in the pamphlet were false. Although some of the claims were actually quite strong - the assertion that the destruction of the Amazonian rain forests was in part due to McDonald's demand for cattle (for burgers), for instance — other claims were less controversial. The corporation found itself on trial before the British people and the world, particularly with regard to those claims involving labour practices and the nutritional content of McDonald's food. The case became a media circus, especially when top McDonald's executives were forced to take the stand and be questioned by the two non-lawyers. In June 1995, McDonald's offered to settle the case (which "was coming up to its first anniversary in court") by donating a large sum of money to a charity chosen by the two; in addition, they would drop the case if Steel and Morris agreed to "stop criticising McDonald's". Steel and Morris secretly recorded the meeting, in which McDonald's executives said the pair could criticise McDonald's privately to friends but must cease talking to the media or distributing leaflets. Steel and Morris wrote a letter in response saying they would agree to the terms if McDonald's ceased advertising its products and instead only recommended the restaurant privately to friends. On 19 June 1997, Mr Justice Bell delivered a more than 1000-page decision largely in favour of McDonald's, summarised by a 45-page paper read in court. Steel and Morris had proven the truth of three fifths of the claims in the original leaflet but were found guilty of libel on several points. Although a legal victory for McDonald's, the case had long since been deemed a Pyrrhic victory for the company, as Bell's decision found that the defendants proved many of the points made in the London Greenpeace pamphlet. Thus, Bell noted that McDonald's did endanger the health of their workers and customers by "misleading advertising", that they "exploit children", that they are "culpably responsible" in the infliction of unnecessary cruelty to animals, and that they are "antipathetic" to unionisation and pay their workers low wages.[14] Furthermore, although the decision awarded £60,000 to the company, McDonald's legal costs were much greater, and the defendants lacked the funds to pay it. Steel and Morris immediately appealed the decision. Worse, evidence that surfaced during the trial regarding McDonald's business practices proved extremely embarrassing for the company. It has been estimated that the case has cost McDonald's £10,000,000. In 1998, a documentary film was made about the case, also titled McLibel. This was updated in 2005 after the verdict of the final appeal. Appeals and further cases Later, the defendants learned McDonald's had not only hired spies to infiltrate London Greenpeace, but that the company had hired agents to break into their offices and steal documents. In September 1998, the pair sued Scotland Yard for disclosing confidential information to investigators hired by McDonalds and received £10,000 and an apology for the alleged disclosure. The Appeal began on 12th January 1999 and lasted 23 days in court, ending on 26th February. The case was heard in Court 1 of the Court of Appeal in the 1100 year old Royal Courts of Justice. The case was heard by Lord Justices Pill & May and Mr Justice Keane (as he then was, he is now Lord Justice Keane). The McLibel 2 represented themselves in court, assisted only by 1st year law student Kalvin P. Chapman (King's College London). McDonalds were represented by Libel law's most (in)famous QC, Richard Rampton, a junior barrister - Timothy Atkinson and a partner at the law firm representing McDonald - Ms Pattie Brinley-Codd of Barlow, Lyde & Gilbert [22]. Helen & Dave had a 63 point appeal (for breakdown or for the actual appeal). The preparation for the appeal had been long, arduous and painful for both Helen & Dave, and a request for further time was denied by the Court, despite medical evidence of exhaustion. The verdict for the McLibel Appeal was handed down at 11am, Wednesday 31st March, in Court 1 at the Royal Courts of Justice. There was a lively celebration picket by supporters outside the Court. In their verdict , Pill, May and Keane added to the damning findings of fact made by the original trial judge, Mr Justice Bell, against McDonald's core business practices. They ruled that: it was fair comment to say that McDonald's employees worldwide 'do badly in terms of pay and conditions' [Appeal Judgment p247], and true that 'if one eats enough McDonald's food, one's diet may well become high in fat etc., with the very real risk of heart disease.' The Lord Justices went on to state that this last finding 'must have a serious effect on their trading reputation since it goes to the very business in which they are engaged.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A STUDYGUIDE by Robert Lewis
    A STUDYGUIDE BY ROBERT LEWIS www.metromagazine.com.au www.theeducationshop.com.au McLibel (Franny Armstrong, 2005) is an 85-minute documentary film about the attempt by McDonald’s to stop the distribution of a pamphlet that they claimed defamed them. wo of the distributors of the settlement negotiations. Even spies. BEFORE WATCHING THE pamphlet, London Greenpeace FILM Tmembers Helen Steel and Dave Seven years later, in February 2005, Morris, defended themselves in what the marathon legal battle finally McLibel is about the court case turned out to be Britain’s longest-ever concluded at the European Court of that was brought by McDonald’s in civil trial. Human Rights. And the result took Britain to stop the distribution of the everyone by surprise – especially the pamphlet ‘What’s wrong with McDon- McLibel is the story of two ordinary British Government. ald’s?’. The pamphlet made many people who humiliated McDonald’s in accusations against McDonald’s. the biggest corporate PR disaster in McLibel is not just about hamburgers. history. McDonald’s loved using the It is about the importance of freedom To understand what the case was UK libel laws to suppress criticism. of speech now that multinational about you need to study the pamphlet. Major media organizations like the corporations are more powerful than BBC and The Guardian crumbled and countries. It is a long pamphlet, so to make the apologized. task easier it has been divided into Filmed over ten years by no-budget sub-sections in Table 1 on (page 3). But then they sued gardener Helen Director Franny Armstrong, McLibel The whole class should look at the Steel and postman Dave Morris.
    [Show full text]
  • Protecting Activists from Abusive Litigation: Slapps in the Global
    PROTECTING ACTIVISTS FROM ABUSIVE LITIGATION SLAPPS IN THE GLOBAL SOUTH AND HOW TO RESPOND SLAPPS IN THE GLOBAL SOUTH Features and Policy Responses Author: Nikhil Dutta, Global Programs Legal Advisor, ICNL, [email protected]. Our thanks go to the following colleagues and partners for valuable discussions and input on this report: Abby Henderson; Charlie Holt; Christen Dobson; Ginna Anderson; Golda Benjamin; Lady Nancy Zuluaga Jaramillo; Zamira Djabarova; the Cambodian Center for Human Rights; iProbono; and SEEDS for Legal Initiatives. Published in July 2020 by the International Center for Not-for-Profit Law (ICNL) TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. SLAPPS IN THE GLOBAL NORTH 2 III. SLAPPS IN THE GLOBAL SOUTH 4 A. Instances of Reported SLAPPs in the South 4 i. Thailand 5 ii. India 7 iii. Philippines 10 iv. South Africa 12 v. Other Instances of Reported SLAPPS in the South 13 B. Features of Reported SLAPPs in the South 15 IV. POLICY RESPONSES TO SLAPPS IN THE GLOBAL NORTH 19 A. Enacting Protections for Public Participation 19 B. Creating Expedited Dismissal Procedures for SLAPPs 20 C. Endowing Courts with Supplemental Authorities to Manage SLAPPs 23 D. Permitting Recovery of Costs by SLAPP Targets 24 E. Authorizing Government Intervention in SLAPPs 25 F. Establishing Public Funds to Support SLAPP Defense 25 G. Imposing Compensatory and Punitive Damages on SLAPP Filers 25 H. Levying Penalties on SLAPP Filers 26 I. Reforming SLAPP Causes of Action 27 V. POLICY RESPONSES TO SLAPPS IN THE GLOBAL SOUTH 27 A. Thailand 28 B. Philippines 30 C. Indonesia 33 VI. DEVISING FUTURE RESPONSES TO SLAPPS IN THE GLOBAL SOUTH 33 REFERENCES 37 I.
    [Show full text]
  • The Following Report Is No Longer Current, and Is to Be Used for Historical Purposes Only
    The following report is no longer current, and is to be used for historical purposes only. CRIMES WITHOUT CONSEQUENCES: The Enforcement of Humane Slaughter Laws in the United States Researched and written by DENA JONES for the Animal Welfare Institute 2 CRIMES WITHOUT CONSEQUENCES: The Enforcement of Humane Slaughter Laws in the United States Researched and written by Dena Jones May 2008 Animal Welfare Institute Crimes Without Consequences: The Enforcement of Humane Slaughter Laws in the United States Researched and written by Dena Jones Animal Welfare Institute P.O. Box 3650 Washington, DC 20027 www.awionline.org Copyright © 2008 by the Animal Welfare Institute Printed in the United States of America ISBN 0-938414-94-1 LCCN 2008925385 i CONTENTS Executive Summary .................................................................................... 1 1. Introduction ............................................................................................. 5 1.1 About the author........................................................................ 6 1.2 About the Animal Welfare Institute ........................................... 6 1.3 Acknowledgements ................................................................... 6 2. Overview of Food Animal Slaughter in the United States ...................... 7 2.1 Animals Slaughtered ................................................................. 7 2.2 Types of Slaughter Plants .......................................................... 12 2.3 Number of Plants .....................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Legal Research Paper Series
    Legal Research Paper Series NON HUMAN ANIMALS AND THE LAW: A BIBLIOGRAPHY OF ANIMAL LAW RESOURCES AT THE STANFORD LAW LIBRARY By Rita K. Lomio and J. Paul Lomio Research Paper No. 6 October 2005 Robert Crown Law Library Crown Quadrangle Stanford, California 94305-8612 NON HUMAN ANIMALS AND THE LAW: A BIBLIOGRPAHY OF ANIMAL LAW RESOURCES AT THE STANFORD LAW LIBRARY I. Books II. Reports III. Law Review Articles IV. Newspaper Articles (including legal newspapers) V. Sound Recordings and Films VI. Web Resources I. Books RESEARCH GUIDES AND BIBLIOGRAPHIES Hoffman, Piper, and the Harvard Student Animal Legal Defense Fund The Guide to Animal Law Resources Hollis, New Hampshire: Puritan Press, 1999 Reference KF 3841 G85 “As law students, we have found that although more resources are available and more people are involved that the case just a few years ago, locating the resource or the person we need in a particular situation remains difficult. The Guide to Animal Law Resources represents our attempt to collect in one place some of the resources a legal professional, law professor or law student might want and have a hard time finding.” Guide includes citations to organizations and internships, animal law court cases, a bibliography, law schools where animal law courses are taught, Internet resources, conferences and lawyers devoted to the cause. The International Institute for Animal Law A Bibliography of Animal Law Resources Chicago, Illinois: The International Institute for Animal Law, 2001 KF 3841 A1 B53 Kistler, John M. Animal Rights: A Subject Guide, Bibliography, and Internet Companion Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 2000 HV 4708 K57 Bibliography divided into six subject areas: Animal Rights: General Works, Animal Natures, Fatal Uses of Animals, Nonfatal Uses of Animals, Animal Populations, and Animal Speculations.
    [Show full text]
  • The Anticruelty Statute: a Study in Animal Welfare Darian M
    College of William & Mary Law School William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository Faculty Publications Faculty and Deans 2006 The Anticruelty Statute: A Study in Animal Welfare Darian M. Ibrahim William & Mary Law School, [email protected] Repository Citation Ibrahim, Darian M., "The Anticruelty Statute: A Study in Animal Welfare" (2006). Faculty Publications. 1680. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/facpubs/1680 Copyright c 2006 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/facpubs THE ANTICRUELTY STATUTE: A STUDY IN ANIMAL WELFARE DARIAN M. IBRAHIM* IN TRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 175 I. ANIMAL RIGHTS, ANIMAL WELFARE, AND THE CONCEPT OF HUMANE EXPLOITATION ................................................................. 177 II. LEGISLATURES, SOCIETAL TENSION, AND THE INEFFECTIVE ANTICRUELTY STATUTE .................................................................. 179 A . The A nticruelty Statute ............................................................. 179 B. Understanding Anticruelty Statute Exemptions ........................ 182 1. Societal Preference ............................................................. 182 2. Legislative C apture ............................................................ 184 3. Animals as Legal Property ................................................. 187 4. Efficiency and Competency ............................................... 187 C.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Articulating Animal Rights
    1 Articulating Animal Rights: Activism, Networks and Anthropocentrism Eva Haifa Sarah Giraud Thesis submitted to the University of Nottingham for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy December 2011 2 Abstract The thesis establishes a conversation between Donna Haraway and the work of contemporary UK animal rights groups, in order to develop their – respective – approaches to articulating animal rights issues. To analyse the tactics of these movements a conceptual framework is constructed through combining Haraway's insights with those of Bruno Latour, performative uses of actor- network theory and key concepts from Pierre Bourdieu (such as field, habitus and doxa). Through focusing on the tactics of UK animal rights groups the thesis works to recuperate certain of these practices from the criticisms Haraway levels at animal rights groups more broadly; illustrating contexts where these movements are departing from humanist rights-discourses and developing approaches more suited to the radical critique of anthropocentrism that is central to Haraway's own project. To develop a sense of the disparate approaches taken by these animal rights movements that complement Haraway's arguments, various online and offline tactics are analysed; drawing on a range of lobbying practices undertaken by movements involved in the vivisection debate (such as SPEAK and the BUAV), before focusing on more creative forms of vegan campaigning engaged in by local Nottingham groups (such as Veggies Catering Campaign and Nottingham Animal Rights). 3 Love and thanks to: Robin Shackford; for making me happy and centred, as well as hearing me repetitively go over my arguments. Annie Giraud; for love and support and everything else that I can‟t put into words.
    [Show full text]
  • Food in World History
    Food in World History Providing a comparative and comprehensive study of culinary cultures and consumption throughout the world, this book examines the globalization of food, illustrating how the diffusion of crops contributed to population growth and industrialization, and exploring the political, social and environmental implications of our changing relationship with food. Including numerous case studies from diverse societies and periods, Food in World History examines and focuses on: • the use of food as a tool of colonialism in Africa and Asia • the influence of the Italian and Chinese diasporas on US and Latin American food culture • how food was fractured along class lines in the French bourgeois restaurant culture and working-class cafés • the results of state intervention in food production and distribution • how the impact of genetic modification and food crises has affected the relationship between consumer and product. This concise and readable survey not only presents a simple history of food and its consumption, but also provides a unique examination of world history itself. Jeffrey M. Pilcher is Associate Professor of History at the University of Minnesota. Author of ¡Que vivan los tamales! Food and the Making of Mexican Identity (1998), he has also published essays in the American Historical Review, The Americas and Food, Culture and Society. Themes in World History Series editor: Peter N. Stearns The Themes in World History series offers focused treatment of a range of human experiences and institutions in the world history context. The purpose is to provide serious, if brief, discussions of important topics as additions to textbook coverage and document collections.
    [Show full text]
  • Mcspotlight Leaflet
    The McSpotlight worldwide web site was launched on Feb 16th 1996 in London, Chicago, Helsinki and Is a high-fat, low-fibre diet linked to heart disease and cancer ? Auckland. Its aim is simple - to make freely available across the globe accurate, factual, up- to-date informa- tion about the McDonald's Corporation and all they stand for (of pressing importance given their ongoing attempts to silence their critics). In its first month it was accessed over a million times (including 1,300 times Are children being exploited by advertising ? by McDonald's themselves) and it has received press coverage all over the world: USA Today (front cover), Channel 4, Times of India, Chicago Tribune, BBC Radio 4, NBC TV, Die Tageszeitung, The Australian, Stern Do McDonald's exploit their low-paid, non-unionised workers ? magazine, Observer, Independent, LA Weekly, Helsingen Snomat (Finland) etc. Can mountains of disposable packaging be justified ? As one of the new breed of Internet sites starting to make full use of the world's most powerful communication system, McSpotlight combines text, graphics, video and audio into an accessible and interactive package that can be used by campaigners, journalists, researchers, scientists, and surfers Are McDonald's responsible for rainforest destruction ? alike - not to mention all McDonald's customers and employees wanting to find out the reality behind the Golden Arches. Do the billions of animals raised for the food industry suffer ? The infamous McLibel Trial and the issues at its heart (diet and ill-health, destruction of the environment, animal welfare, exploitation of children through advertising and workers through low pay) provide the focus Should cattle have priority over indigenous people for land ? for the site, but it is not just McDonald's in the McSpotlight.
    [Show full text]
  • Revealed: Us Nukes on Uk Soil
    REEDOM 8 0 p H A N A R C H I S T NEWS AND VIEWS www.freodompress.org.uk 5 MARCH 2005 Mega union merger Cultural cold war Rudolf Rocker reissued INSIDE ►► “"f2nmu,,el page 3 page 5 page 7 REVEALED: US NUKES ON UK SOIL report from America has for the And Closure (BRAC) review,” first time confirmed the presence The B61 bombs are ’free-fall’ weapons, A of nuclear weapons at RAF and must be carried by aircraft to their Lakenheath - with an explosive potential target. They have an explosive potential of 18,000 Hiroshima bombs. of 18,7 megatons. The Hiroshima US-based group the Natural Resources bomb was one kiloton. Defence Council (NRDC), using Freedom Before the report, it was believed that of information laws, claim to have found Lakenheath had moved half of them in a document signed by Clinton in 2000 1996-7. The 2000 directive however acknowledging the existence of 101 bombs. suggests this never happened. Potentially, Hans Kristensen, author of the report, they could be used in several areas at the said: “That document authorised the moment, Hans said: “They can potentially Pentagon to deploy 480 nuclear weapons be used against targets in Russia, Iran in Europe. And NATO says the number or Syria, I would remark that even if one has not been reduced since then.” believes the weapons serve a legitimate For the past decade, Lakenheath have purpose, the presence of such a large refused to confirm accusations that their number on NATO’s northern flank base holds nuclear materials.
    [Show full text]
  • Whaling on Trial Whaling on Trial
    Whaling on Trial Japan's whale meat scandal and the trial of the Tokyo Two l a i r t n o g n i l a h W Whaling on Trial This dossier outlines the key elements of Greenpeace's investigation of the Japanese government-sponsored whaling programme and the subsequent arrest, detention and prosecution of Junichi Sato and Toru Suzuki. The Whale The Meat Scandal Tokyo Two An informant's allegations, our The arrest of Junichi Sato subsequent investigation and the and Toru Suzuki, and the beginnings of the backlash against harshness of the Japanese Greenpeace in Japan criminal justice system The Struggle Information for a Fair Trial Unanswered questions, quick facts, timelines and how the Tokyo Two are being supported around the world. The pre-trial processes, and emerging clues for a cover-up Published in August 2010 For more information contact: [email protected] JN 298 greenpeace.org Whaling on Trial Japan's stolen whale meat scandal and the trial of the Tokyo Two © In early 2010, two Greenpeace activists went on trial in Japan in an unprecedented court case - one that court G R E E papers will register simply as a case of theft and trespass but which, over the course of the past two years, N P E has become so much more. Corrupt government practices, Japan’s adherence to international law, freedom A C E / of speech and the right of individual protest and the commercial killing of thousands of whales are all under the J E R E spotlight. Before the verdict has even been rendered, the United Nations has already ruled that, in the M Y S defendants' attempts to expose a scandal in the public interest, their human rights have been breached by U T T O the Japanese government.
    [Show full text]
  • Fowl Deeds the Impact of Chicken Production and Consumption on People and the Environment
    sustain the alliance for better food and farming Fowl deeds The impact of chicken production and consumption on people and the environment Food Facts No9 A SUSTAIN PUBLICATION What are ‘Food Facts’? There is growing concern about the quality of the food are not comprehensive dossiers, they are “sign-posting” we eat and drink - a recent poll1 showed that a majority documents, indicating the current scope of the debate of people now believe that food safety is deteriorating. and offering sources of further information. Many People are also worried about the environment and organisations in the Sustain membership (see inside back farming practices, and how our food production and cover) provide some of the best sources of such distribution systems may be contributing to problems information, and the Food Facts series is guided by a such as transport pollution, global warming and the loss working party (listed below) to whom we are indebted. of wildlife. The buoyant market for healthier foods, and However, the views expressed here do not necessarily exponentially growing sales for organically produced represent those of every member of the working party, foods show that many of us are prepared to make or of the Sustain membership as a whole. We are grateful positive choices to help tackle these problems. But our to the following organisations for supporting the ability to do so depends, among other things, on having production of the Food Facts series: Government’s the facts. This report is the ninth in a planned series of Environmental Action Fund, the Esmée Fairbairn twelve, all of which aim to provide information about the Charitable Trust, the Cobb Charity, the Cecil Pilkington positive and negative effects of food production methods Charitable Trust and the Chapman Charitable Trust.
    [Show full text]
  • Framing PETA and Mcdonald's
    Qualitative Methods Kate Nattrass Final Group Project Tamara Garcia Sarah Jones Ike Sharpless December 18, 2008 Framing PETA and McDonald’s: Assessing the Causes of Industry-Driven Farm Animal Welfare Measures “I think it would be a great thing if, you know, all these fast food outlets and these slaughterhouses and these laboratories and the bans that fund them exploded tomorrow.” -Bruce Friedrich, (then) PETA dir. of vegan outreach (Specter 2002) "If you're not going to say nice things about them no matter what…corporations have no reason to ever change their practices." -Bruce Friedrich, (now) PETA Vice President, praising McDonald’s decision to phase out growth-promoting antibiotics in its beef supply (Sanchez 2003) Background. The new millennium has brought with it a sea of change in how activists and companies interact; whereas activist organizations previously sought to influence corporate behavior primarily through lobbying and boycotts, many activist organizations now choose to work with rather than against the companies of which they are critical. (Browne and Schweikhard 2001) This trend is most pronounced in the formation of alliances between environmental groups and corporations, 1 (Economist 2008) but a comparable relationship may be emerging between animal activists and the giants of food retailing. Using a two year-long exchange between PETA and McDonald’s over farm animal welfare standards as a policy template, this paper examines two aspects of the role of stakeholder motivation in causing industry-driven change: assessing whether animal advocacy groups are pursuing this trend towards collaboration, and identifying the primary causal drivers of McDonald’s improved hen welfare standards.
    [Show full text]