A Campaign Against Kfc Corporation

A Campaign against KFC Corporation

Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC) is one of the largest companies in the world, within the fast food industry. Having in mind their name, we can acknowledge that their main ingredient served to the consumers is chicken, or any part that constitutes the animal. They serve all kinds of chicken, in all different shapes and forms, with a wide variety of different sauces on the side. This franchise is made up of 15,580 restaurants throughout 109 countries worldwide, serving an average number of 12 million people clients daily.

After some research within the producing methods of KFC, People for the ethical treatment of animals (PETA), made a claim to try and hold KFC responsible for the wrongful treatment of chickens, and the way they are put down and prepared for delivery. This movement began by PETA establishing a conversation with the firm’s President, Cheryl Bachelder, which simply stated their concern, regarding the issue in hand. On top of this, they continued to fight for their movement by leading multiple complement reunions with all the KFC’s management team, in an attempt to create chaos and drive attention to the problem within the business environment. Furthermore, PETA also tried to force the transformation to happen, by protesting, boycotting, harassing executives, and other means, due to the fact that KFC firmly stated, that they were not willing to enter negotiations with “corporate terrorists”. Despite all these threats and actions taken by the defending organization, none of these activities provoked any changes, in the sales of the alleged firm, responsible for the mal treatment of chicken.

Having all of this information in mind, we can understand, that the major issues in hand, relate to the fact that, KFC, has not been able to engage and implement an animal wellbeing methodology, that correlates directly, with the fact that, the current treatment offered by the firm, is seen as an unethical one. Adding on, due to the fact that PETA has begun several campaigns in protest of these acts, the firm has to be aware of its possible affects in the long term, towards the business and social perspective of the enterprise.

When choosing a side to support, it is important to understand fully the background and the reality of the story from both the angles. Having this thought in mind, the KFC company, does not have their own headquarters for the breeding of chicken, or even any part of the preparation process of the animal. Instead, the firm subcontracts other farms to do it for them, meaning that all that KFC does, is provide them with the financial support necessary to reach their quantity demands, they have no real say in how the animals get treated along the process.

On the other hand, we have PETA that although fighting for a good cause, they are not really tackling the source of the problem. It is indeed understandable, that due to the fact that KFC is the bigger brand, if they take the larger hit, they will supposedly try to fix the issue as fast as possible in an attempt to decrease the short and long-term damages, when discussing the finance components of the firm, and the brand recognition. Having this strategy in mind, although in most eyes not the most ethical approach, it can be the plan that will have the most impact in the least amount of time. Agglomerating all of these thoughts together, makes supporting a specific side a hard decision, since one, is fighting for the right cause, but on other hand, they are not confronting the real source of the problem, but the firm that gives and gets recognized for it, meaning that the problem should be tackled, although it should be directly done with the cause.

Deepening the case stated by PETA, the main criticism they make towards the brand/company, KFC, is the thought of them, putting profit as their main priority when compares to other worthy values, such as but not limited to: honesty, genuineness, love and nurture towards the environment/nature. In this particular case, PETA specifically criticizes the fact that the fast food firm is violating the rights of the animals which in this case, are the chickens, the company’s main ingredient. In order to make their appeal more convincing and alarming, they began as previously mentioned, not only a campaign but other plans, in order to have an impact of some sort in the business environment of KFC’s organization. Furthermore, it is imperative to understand that people who relate to these values, and fully comprehend the actions taken by PETA, will not only be convinced, but fight this cause with them.

Building of the point, whether PETA approached the issue in the right manner, and are they pressuring the right company, it is vital to grasp the fact that they built the case accordingly, meaning that they began by recognizing KFC, as the world’s largest chicken consumer worldwide. This first step was made, in order to ensure that the public understood and acknowledged how threatening this problem is to the animal kingdom. Adding on, they were able to then connect the brand to the issue in hand, which aided them, in bringing several groups together, in order to become stronger in the fight for the safety of these animals. Finally, they were also able to get some celebrities to join their cause, people like, Paul McCartney, the Rev, Al Sharpton, and others, which then cause an even bigger impact on the consumers, and watchers worldwide. Analyzing this strategy, we can conclude that, PETA could only see a possible change, or a modification being done to the system, if they attacked the well-known company, the wealthiest, and surely the one, who would fear the loss of consumers and ultimately profit, the most. With this being said, stakeholders would always be impacted by this move, indifferently if they were connected to KFC, or the farms producing the chickens. This might not have been the most ethical approach to take, but it certainly did not break any laws, and it made the most influence overall.