According to chapter three, reducing aggression and increasing pragmatism in Environmental Advocacy, give way to the "Third Way Environmentalism" where the 'creed' is: "working with self interest is more effective than appealing altruism." This creed has led to the three principles that support this 'environmental third way': To help businesses modify their operations in order to reduce pollution; to make partnership with corporations; and to run a business to secure own incomes. But I'm a little worried about the fact that the basis of this "new third way" is the self-interest rather than altruism. Admittedly, this pragmatic approach has proved to be an effective win-win model, but what happens in the event that the model is no longer profitable for corporations (especially regarding the two first principles.)? Will Mcdonalds continue in its efforts to reduce environmental impact if it finds that using environmentally friendly materials is more expensive financially? ...
I would say yes, they will continue reducing environmental pollution even though they find it costs more.
ReplyDeleteIt reminds me in last class Dan talked about Long-term strategy and short-term strategy. A successful enterprise as Macdonalds would see its benefits in the long run. So establishing a good image of themselves among customers is very important.
And hey, technology is always updating rapidly, so I would expect the win-win situation would last for a long time.
I also feel like Mcdonald wouldn't give up using environmentally friendly material. It's a way to campaign among people that throughing buying food from Mcdonald means making a contribution to improve our environment, especially among people who have a good sense about protecting our environment. Besides, people's awareness of the importance of being green is improving day by day. In the long run, Mcdonald will win the heart of the consumers over its competitors.
ReplyDeleteI also think McDonalds is image conscious enough to recognize the importance of being as green as possible. For me personally, knowing that I am buying food in environmentally friendly packaging offsets the guilt I feel due to said food being crap. :)
ReplyDeleteI agree with the direction of Robin’s statement. I think that McDonald’s is aware of the implications of having a positive versus negative image. McDonald’s has a history of facing backlash for its practices, the use of animal-based products for frying French fries is one example that comes to mind. Unfortunately, I find it hard to believe that there is another way to appeal to this organization than through the use of “self-interest.”
ReplyDeleteWal-Mart is another good example of this phenomenon. While millions of customers walk through Wal-Mart’s doors each day, the superstore is also aware that many others avoid their company because of their negative impact on the environment, poor labor policies, effect on small local business, etcetera. If consumer’s refusal to purchase their goods has not forced Wal-Mart to change its practices, I (sadly) do not believe that appeals to altruism will either. Therefore, if appeals to self-interest are the only option, than the best options they are.
Conversely, I have heard this same “self-interest rather than altruism” argument made about individual donors as well. In these cases, I am more reluctant to agree. Perhaps, if you consider a person’s positive self-perception following a charitable act “self-interest” than it is true. To me, that positive perception is a result of an individual’s altruistic nature and subsequent charitable act rather than “self-interest.”
I share your thoughts, really, is just that sometimes I think on that dichotomy: self interest vs altruism, and I conclude saying to my self that corporations will always get engaged in environment causes because of customers pressure ... here is where the media is so important because it puts customers aware of any harm "x" or "y" corporation is causing to the environment or nature in general (including us) ...
ReplyDelete