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?
