Globalization Case

Globalization (Examine how and why McDonalds recently decided to rebrand itself in the UK)

1. Introduction

McDonald had strategies that were top notch in the media, like The New York Times. This was attributed to the company's abilities to change its mass-marketing operation to be of reputable success in the American media. However, the brand acquired criticism from several quarters in terms of labour, environmental and social externalities of its increasing empire. Concerns were based on youth labour, encroachment of community values, environmentalism, globalization of culture and healthy life styles. This paper aims to focus on why the rebranding took place and how it happened.

2. Why McDonald's Rebranded

2.1. Young Workforce

With close to a million in staff, McDonald's impact on the labor force has been immense. In 2000, an eighth of Americans had in some point of their lives worked for the company. Taking into consideration that labour took most of the expenses, the company had to look for ways to rationalize it. In addition to using technology to replace human labor, the company opted to apply youthful employees to work in the company (Chernatony, & Cottam, 2006). However, this was a risk considering how the company handled its staff. Critics claim that the company was vulnerable due to the lack of experience and desire to please the management.

The company has tried to make valid their use of young staff through several programs. They have been quick to publish pictures of happy staff. The decline of youthful population in the 80s has led the company to acquire new immigrant staff, seniors and disabled people to play a role in distancing it from any controversy to do with the young workforce.

2.2. Community and family values

McDonald's started its growth in the 60s in medium towns where it appeals, money and friendly service was in line with the white middle class. While as the chain began to grow in city centers and small towns, it operated against the ones from McDonald's suburban values which provoked a bad gesture (Muzellec, Laurent & Lambkin, 2006). In 1969 when the black people stay away from the company's restaurants due to its rejection of franchise opportunities for the black, the company's value of mass integration received a blow.

Five years later, the urban occupants of Greenwhich community in New York, was against McDonald's chain which was a threat to the family-owned shops, lead to traffic congestion and loitering as well as littering. As a result, several protests were organized by Hell's Kitchen in major part of cities (Botterill, and Kline, 2007). The company was unable to acquire a location and was just a loss of income. The company's public relation put effort in trying to later the opinion held by the public.

2.3. Environment Issue

In the 1980s, the company relied on the supply of beef so as to create its food products. However, cases arose of the destruction of rainforest. Several activists came out to voice their concerns over how McDonald promotional weight and availability led to a meat-based diet that created below par handling and slaughter of several animals. However, media shows that the greatest environmental concern was the waste and package of the company.

For two decades McDonald's packaged its burgers in cardboard and sold them. While in 1975, the company came up with a new packaging; 'clamshell', which was affordable and kept the burger hot as well as no grease stains (Pride, and Ferrell, 2010). However, come the 80s health expert established a connection between plastic and certain carcinogenic which made the packaging a threat. In1987, several organizations started a campaign to lobby and boycott the company's products due to the plastic packaging.

Two years later, the company settled on a $16 million recycling programme for the packaging and become the biggest buyer of the recycled products. So as to acquire validity, McDonald took part in research effort with the Environmental Defense Fund so as to change the material used in packaging. A year later, the company came up with a plan to limit its waste by a great margin (Muzellec, Laurent & Lambkin, 2006). This was through the use of shortened napkins and refillable coffee mugs. This aimed to do away with foam packaging and go back to paper wrapping.

2.4. Fat kids and burger panic

In 1985 there was an increased concern of a fat population, consequently, the National Institute of Health aimed to reduce fat intake by 30% so as to do away with any negative issues relating health. One that was of great concern by NIH was the fast food industry with the hamburger being on the fore front. In the beginning 90s, fries were fried in vegetable oil as opposed to beef mixture (Nederveen, 1996). Foods with low fat were included in the menu.

McDonald's was at a great threat for warning its client of the risk of its burger. This led to the Center for Science to call for supply of ingredients on their foods, however McDonald complained of cost though later complied fearing state policy. The company educated its clients on their products in terms of calories, cholesterol, fat, minerals and sodium among others.

In the 1990, McDonald supplied the nutritional attributes of its food to all its restaurants. Three years later, it sought the help of Dietetic Association in targeting children. Consequently, children were educated on the foods in Happy Meals using toys and television (Nederveen, 1996). Claims were however made that meat could help children do many things like climbing places.

2.5. Court Case: McLibel

In 1989, McDonald was faced with a court case. Alongside an aggressive company expansion in Britain, some British Greenpeace activist opted to enlighten the public on the irrationalities. This comprise the distribution of papers titled; 'What's wrong with McDonald's?' which claimed that the company's desire for profit had led it to spread American imperialism to other nations. This led to labour exploitation and environmental destruction as well as unhealthy children (Pride, and Ferrell, 2010). The crafters claimed that the foods had low fibre, high fat and sugar which led to poor health. This led to customers to boycott the products from the company.

With an aim to protect the image of the company, McDonald's legal team claimed libel. The court case took a lot of time in the British courts (ten years). The company fought using supported over their right to publish criticism of the company (Botterill,