By 
Greenpeace may have turned over a new leaf of sorts: apparently, it has taken to praising McDonalds of all things. Greenpeace recently applauded the corporation’s recent opening of its first HFC / HCFC-free joint. While McDonalds is one of the “last corporations [Greenpeace] want[s] to say anything good about,” (Greenpeace’s website says), Greenpeace has decided to give credit where credit is due (in this instance anyway). The interchange raises some interesting issues, since Greenpeace isn’t exactly known for being diplomatic (think “graffiti on Hewlett Packard buildings”) and Micky D’s has traditionally been far from sustainability-minded. Is this a Big Mac-sized mood swing, a fluke, or a genuine change – on both organizations’ parts?
The Greenpeace article emphasizes McDonald’s opening of a restaurant (in Denmark) equipped with environmentally-friendly refrigeration. Since traditional refrigeration systems contribute significantly to ozone depletion and climate change, McD’s eco-fridge maneuver is an important step in its purported efforts to green itself. It is also important since McDonalds’ oomph in the food service and refrigeration industries could cause a green-fridge domino effect.
But is eco refrigeration really cause enough for Greenpeace to drop its usually-militant stance against the global hamburger joint? Aren’t there plenty of other grudges it could hold and glaring errors it could point out? Take, for example, the stance taken by the Natural Capital Institute’s Paul Hawken on the greening of McDonalds, reported on CommonDreams.org (Hawken resigned from the Green Business Network Steering Committee when he learned McDonalds was also on the Committee):
“Corporations such as McDonalds have tried to direct the concept of a green business to recycled tray liners, reduced waste stream, and other molecular flaws. [While these issues are important, attending to them does not] make a business green. Being green is about the awareness that we are part of a complex living system, not simply trying to be part of a short term fix. Integral to that system are human beings – their lives, their bodies, their wages, and how they are treated and respected. To have a company such as McDonalds on the Steering Committee is an insult to the idea of being ‘green.’”
Historically, Greenpeace has shared Hawken’s attitude toward McDonalds (more or less). So why the change in heart?
Notably, Greenpeace claims some credit for McDonald’s decision to try green refrigeration. Turns out Greenpeace has pressured the fast food giant to take the eco fridge plunge since 2000 (or earlier), when Greenpeace sought to convince Sydney Olympics sponsors (including McD’s) to adhere to Greenpeace’s green games guidelines. No wonder Greenpeace has vocalized its support of Micky D’s eco fridge move.
Nonetheless, I believe Greenpeace’s thumbs-up is significant on several levels. It signals that the activist network’s communication tactics could be evolving and that a company doesn’t necessarily have to start at the top rung of the sustainability ladder to get a little cred. If I am right, and if the Greenpeace-Micky-D’s interaction is a microcosm of a changing ethos in greening of conspicuously un-green corporations, the un-greens and the greens could look forward to more harmonious future.
What do you think?
August 19, 09 at 2:49 am PDT | Greenpeace’s New BFF: McDonald’s? | Trends Updates writes:
[...] TriplePundit RSS Feed Subscribe by Email [...]
August 20, 09 at 6:21 am PDT | Greenpeace Praises McDonalds’ Eco-Fridge writes:
[...] Triple Pundit: While McDonalds is one of the “last corporations [Greenpeace] want[s] to say anything good [...]
Comments
August 18, 2009 at 12:38 pm PDT | Creative Greenius writes:
I think that Greenpeace was right on in painting HP’s roof and HP deserves it for their shameless greenwashing. Mark Hurd is all talk and no walk when it comes to be truly green. It’s not about doing it only when you’re profitable and the timing works for you. You either understand the reality of climate change today or you don’t. Greenpeace gets it. And if you ask me, they were more “diplomatic” than they needed to be with HP.
August 18, 2009 at 12:43 pm PDT | Nick Aster writes:
I thought we were talking about McDonalds.
August 18, 2009 at 14:48 pm PDT | candid writes:
This is not a change or “evolution” of Greenpeace tactics. Greenpeace recognizes concrete actions of substance and praises companies for THEIR SPECIFIC WORK. Greenpeace has a long history of working with companies willing to make real change on the ground. And yes, they will even praise those companies’ who have been slow to wake to sustainability issues: when they do good. On the refrigerant front, Greenpeace and the United Nations Environmental Programme are both featured prominently on the industry’s “Refrigerants, Naturally” website along side Pepsi, Coke, Ikea and so on. Greenpeace gives credit where credit is due and kicks butt when it needs kicking.
August 18, 2009 at 14:54 pm PDT | Lord Jesus writes:
It Has Long Been Said That McDonalds Will Soon Rule Planet Earth. And I Right Beside It Just As I Have Been Right Beside You.
August 18, 2009 at 16:40 pm PDT | CariSF writes:
Perhaps Greenpeace has always recognized companies for their specific work…but that certainly is not the brand I think of when I think of Greenpeace. I would like to believe that perhaps an evolution is afoot….one where Greenpeace understands that “being green” is as much about “becoming” as “being.” Maybe Greenpeace is recognizing a company’s efforts to take the journey. But, if they leave the road, I fully expect Greenpeace to call them out! Next up, how does Mickey D’s deal with methane?
August 19, 2009 at 8:57 am PDT | Darren writes:
Well said. I think Greenpeace is doing the right thing by recognizing incremental change.
As for Methane, why can’t McDonalds switch to soy burgers? Seriously, their current bugers are hardly beef – they’re just beef flavored “matter”. They could switch to soy tomorrow and no one would notice as long as that “flavor” is still there.
August 18, 2009 at 22:57 pm PDT | Gonzobot writes:
It makes sense to make a big deal about big X corporations making a tiny step towards actual change; this is how you begin toilet training a two year old child.
McDicks Head Office footing the bill for every single franchise to have these ‘green’ fridge systems is not the first step, or even ANY step at all – but the fact that ONE store at least has realized that the next hundred years of the PLANET are important, is itself an important fact, and needs to be celebrated as such (lest the importance be lost in the sea of uselessness and ignorance that is america)
August 18, 2009 at 23:06 pm PDT | poop writes:
They shouldnt get any credit, all they did was a fridge. I was expecting something a little more worth reading about.
August 18, 2009 at 23:44 pm PDT | Jay Torrence writes:
Nike and Timberland are two more corporate names that have been given credit by Greenpeace recently for their responses to rain forest protection campaigns. They’ve both pledged to stop sourcing leather from Brazilian operations that clear Amazon acreage for cattle production. Likewise, the organization has credited Kimberly-Clark (largest producer of consumer paper goods) with a new policy of compliance (at long last) with Forest Stewardship Council standards for protection of the Boreal and other critical forest habitats. Greenpeace has employed similar tactics in their global campaign to green the consumer electronics industry (the HP actions came only after many YEARS of frustration with broken promises to lower toxicity in manufacturing and establish effective take-back programs ensuring proper recycling of e-waste). Give credit where credit is due. “The carrot must be as sweet as the stick is biting,” to paraphrase Greenpeace blogger Mike G.
August 18, 2009 at 23:45 pm PDT | Tristan Smith writes:
Greenpeace is the McDonald’s of activism. No applauding here. Hell, I think PETA has a better activism group than Greenpeace.
“Let’s hold up signs & hope they stop destroying the planet.”
They’ve gone so soft in the past 20 years.
August 18, 2009 at 23:52 pm PDT | Jay Torrence writes:
Been a follower for 20 years, have you, Tristan? If so you would be celebrating the significant recent advances that Greenpeace has achieved not trolling for reactions from those whose respect has been hard-earned by this global titan of eco-justice.
August 19, 2009 at 9:08 am PDT | Tristan Smith writes:
http://weblog.greenpeace.org/makingwaves/archives/2008/09/less_toxic_ipods_rock.html
Oh, yeah. Getting Apple to use less toxic materials in their iPods is for sure saving the acres of rainforest where Mercury grows freely. :P
Or really doing all they can to save the coral reef from dying.
Paul Watson was right when he called Greenpeace the “Avon ladies of environmental movement”. You know that I’m right when I say they’re not radical enough anymore.
August 19, 2009 at 9:04 am PDT | Alfred writes:
I personally like the level-headed Greenpeace much more than the militant Greenpeace. I hope they continue the trend.
August 19, 2009 at 14:14 pm PDT | detcader writes:
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/mcdonald-s-bad-guys-do-good
07 February 2003
Very very old news.
August 20, 2009 at 12:09 pm PDT | Ron Litton writes:
I am in the paper business. There are also options available for most businesses to use paper now that is also no longer made from trees. Email me if interested.
August 24, 2009 at 17:25 pm PDT | Regor Reklaw writes:
Cow farts are not going to destroy the planet. That’s just dumb on dumb.
October 09, 2009 at 19:29 pm PDT | Neal H. Levin writes:
You need to turn that cow around. It’s actually the burping, not the farting.
September 05, 2009 at 8:29 am PDT | CJ writes:
The fact that all of these issues are finally coming to the conscienceness of the general public and pressure from “general public” is on all over the Earth is where change will actually come from, in my humble opinion. Each one of us casts our vote when we purchase anything. Keeping “THAT” in the forefront and giving consumers the truth about the damage that is done by all of these corporations is extremely important. McDonald’s is jumping on the green washing bandwagon but they have not done enough. As far as Greenpeace is concerned I believe their approach of giving praise for a genuine step is appropriate. The main stream must vote with their purchases and that is where real change will come into play. I live in the South and McDonald’s will not even allow you to use your own cup for coffee, and they are certainly not pushing organic freetrade coffee. We have a long way to go.
September 30, 2009 at 5:41 am PDT | recording studio leeds writes:
hopefully they will apply it world wide
October 07, 2009 at 5:33 am PDT | Paula writes:
Dear Sarah,
I would suggest you update your sources.
The article you are referring to is from 2003. Please dont create any discussion if you are not able to give the right information.
If you really want to do what Greenpeace is doing today on F-gases please check http://www.greenpeace.org/f-gases. ONly then we can have a serious discussion.
Best,
October 26, 2009 at 16:30 pm PDT | anon writes:
The Greenpeace/McDs story was originally posted in 2003. Loads of global corporations have made more green decisions, and loads of once critical non-profit activists are helping these large corporations find better solutions.