FREE ESSAY ON MCLIBEL CASE STUDY

MCLIBEL CASE STUDY

As organizations seeks ways to increase profits by filtering into international markets,
many turn to the field of public relations as a way of reaching cross-cultural markets.
Factors such as values, cultural differences, language barriers, beliefs, etc…in
order to successfully promote an organization's products and services. Public relations
practitioners have the responsibility to be the mediator between the organizations and
public(s). According to Murphy and Dee (1992), " Public relations makes organizations
more effective by building relationships with stakeholders in the environment that have
the potential to constrain or enhance the mission of the organization." This role also
involves disseminating and seeking information to the public. This information/feedback
provides the public relations practitioners and the organizations with insight as how the
publics perceive the organization.
When the organizations forget/ignore the importance of public relations practitioner's
role in the organizational structure, this may often result in dissatisfactions among the
organization's publics and often react in a way that may harm to the organization. This
conflict is characterized as activism, which when not dealt correctly, can end in harsh
consequences such as tarnished reputation or decrease in profits.
1. McDonald's perspective in identifying their key publics in the Mclibel case.
It's very important to correctly identify and characterize the relevant key publics.
Dewy(1982) first propounded a public is a group whose members face a similar problem,
recognize that problem exists, and organizes something to do about it. Grunig and
Hunt(1984) assert that there are three stages in the evolutions of publics. In the first
stage, the public does not recognize the problem. In latent stages, the public moves to
the aware stage when it recognizes the problem. The final stage is the active stage
recognizes the problem and organizes something to do about it. According to J.E. Grunig
and Hunt (1984) the idea is to communicate with an aware public before it actively
opposes an organization, thus becoming an activist public.
London Greenpeace is an activist group with 3.3 million members in over 22 countries that
use highly visible actions to draw media attention to environmental problems. The London
Greenpeace group, a division of Greenpeace, is an independent group of activists that has
no involvement in any political party. This group meets weekly to share concern for the
oppression in our lives and the destruction of our environment. Anderson (1992) cited
that weaknesses in most case studies of activism is that similar case studies should be
conducted that examine activism from the perspective of both the organizations and of the
activists groups, which is applicable to this study of the McLibel case. In my research,
I came across must more literature and disseminated information from the small activist
group of London Greenpeace versus the large multi-national corporation of McDonald's.
This study also points to the need of more studies that examine the special problems of
international communication. The actions of a McDonald's triggered activist conflict not
only in London, but in 
other different countries as well. 
If public relations practitioners are to assess issues successfully and identify publics
that are likely to become active on those issues, they must look beyond the confines of
their own culture and beyond the borders of their own country, Anderson (1992).
Greenpeace, being an extreme organization, has to manage or maintain its public image as
a group that will not compromise on environmental issues, Murphy and Dee (1992). The
organization fits Grunig's (1989) description of a high involvement, information seeking
public which believe in collective intervention in organizational decision making. This
public seeks to change the direction of environmental decline versus a substitution for
lost resources.
Strategies of conflict used by Greenpeace, extreme actions, unilateral demands and its
intolerance for compromisation. This model emphasizes winning at the expense of the other
in which both Greenpeace and McDonald's exemplified through its actions. This method
includes communication through manipulation of the issues to slant arguments in its own
favor, the use of flamboyant symbols to depict choices in absolute terms, and the refusal
to cede any points as pointed by Murphy and Dee (1992). 
Greenpeace used flamboyant symbols in celebrating the second anniversary of the trial by
inviting the media and the public to celebrate by eating a cake in the shape of Ronald
McDonald's face. (McLibel video). 
The largest support for this belief came from Mcdonalds worst public relations blunder in
it's history which occurred in Britian. It took court two penniless left activists, David
Morris and Helen Steel, who had distributed a factsheet about Mcdonalds which the company
claimed was libelous. Unlike three others who also received writs from the company,
Morris and Steel refused to apologize
Definition of Activism
L.A. Grunig(1992) defines activism as: "An activist public is a group of two or more
individual who organize to influence another public or publics through action that may
include education, compromise, persusion, pressure tactics or force. Anderson(1992)
defines activist groups as strategic publics because they constrain an organization's
ability to accomplish it's goals and mission. 
Anderson(1992) went on describing activist as those that "create issues, appeal to
governments, courts or the media for litigation, regulation or other forms of pressure."
According to Lesly(1992), there are five types of the first type is the sincere group.
This group has a clear purpose that frankly reflects their rights or interests. 
The second group is called the do-gooders. This group is usually comfortable and
affluent. They seek an outlet for their purposefulness in helping others or in making
things fit their theories of life.
The third group are the social engineers. This group consider themselves intellectually
and morally the cream of society and are intent on imposing their superior judgment onto
the entire human system.
The fourth type of activist is holier-than-thou group who feel that heaven has anointed
them with the one true formula for human existence and that it is their duty to impose it
on everyone else. Finally, the anti's are those who are against almost everything,
constantly dissastisfied with their lives and the world.
In order to deal with these publics effectively, Lesly (1992) suggests that public
relations practitioners must become sensitive to the psyche of the people involved in
these activist groups. 
2. How Could McDonald's have handled this affair more effectively from a public relations
perspective? 
The Public Relations perception mistakes that McDonald's should have avoided :
McDonald's first public relations mistake was it pursuit of its legal vendetta against
the two activists. This action proved that the company had jumped the gun in protecting
its reputation/image. By not conducting any environmental scanning, the corporation had
no idea of how its publics perceived the organization after the dissemination of the
leaflets. Thus, the company had no idea whether or not it was necessary to conduct damage
control in order to protect its reputation.
Secondly, the corporation failed to do environmental scanning on Greenpeace itself. The
company had no idea of the size of the activist groups, its power to influence publics
locally, nationally, and internationally, the resources the group had available to defend
its position, or the credibility of the organization. 
The final public relations mistake the company made was using asymmetrical methods to
disseminate information. On the eve of the trial, McDonald's issued 300,000 leaflets that
called the activists liars, as a way of discrediting them. This strategy backfired
because the company did not conduct any background research on the activists, thus just
deciding to utilize one-way communication to argue its side. Mcdonald's had failed to do
environmental scanning on Greenpeace itself. The company had no idea of the size of the
activist groups, its power to influence publics locally, nationally, and internationally,
the resources the group had available to defend its position, or the credibility of the
organization. As McDonald's felt justified in the legal action it took against Morris and
Steel. In the September 16, 1999 issue of Marketing, a weekly UK trade magazine, an
article on the case exerts the fact that no matter what McDonald's does, it will always
be a bad guy in the eyes of pressure groups which don't like multinational capitalism,
particularly when its well marketed.
2. How could other corporations learn from the case?
According to Murphy and Dee (1992), many public relations practitioners generally assume
that the solution to dealing with activist publics lies in negotiation and compromise:
The solution is a redefinition of the relative roles in a non-adversary climate, no
matter what is takes. The rule makers are not evil, capricious, unthinking people, but
more likely hardworking public servants. They can, with some sense of community, engage
in a dialogue...(to) balance the conflicting needs of employment and the environment.
(Schnancht, cited in J.E. Grunig & Hunt, 1984). 
Research has shown that business and industry are not always held in high esteem in the
eyes of the public when words are put on someone else's mouth. Oftentimes when an
organization attempts to advocate a good image, it is not supported or accepted by the
public because it knows who the organization is. Organizations must realize that they are
not immune from potential credibility problems. In realizing this, organizations must
seek the help of other credible institutions to re-establish its credibility. Rose(1991)
Lesly (1992) noted that an organization must have expertise in five areas which are: 
v Knowing the situation and the climate.
v Knowing your people.
v Knowing your adversaries.
v Knowing what to do.
v Knowing how to do it. 
3.Grunig's Four models of Public Relations (Grunig, J. E.1984, pg56-57)
Model Name Type of Communication Model Characteristics
Press agentry/publicity model One-way communication Uses persuasion and manipulation to
influence audience to behave as the organization desires
Public Information model One-way communication Uses press releases and other one-way
communication techniques to distribute organizational information. Public relations
practitioner is often referred to as the journalist in residence.
One-way asymmetrical model One-way communication Uses persuasion and manipulation to
influence audience to behave as the organization desires. Does not use research to find
out how it public(s) feel about the organization.
Two-way symmetrical model Two-way communication Uses communication to negotiate with
publics,resolve conflict, and promote mutual understanding and respect between the
organization and its public(s).
3a) The two-way symmetrical model would have been most effective for Mcdonald's.
v The need of two-way communication to learn the consequences of what they are doing on
all their relevant publics, not just their employees, and their associates.
v The need two-way communication to tell the publics what they are doing about any
negative consequences.
3b) The Public Information model would have been most effective for anti- 
Mcdonald's group.
Nope! Mcdonald's adopted the One-way asymmetrical model (one-way communication) strategy.
It backfired because the company did not conduct any background research on the
activists. My recommended approach was not adopted in reality by McDonald's, but the
anti-McDonald's activist group had adopted the Public Information model (One-way
communication), thus utilizing one-way communication to argue its side.
If McDonald's had approached the two-way symmetrical model since the late eighties (the
beginning of the anti-Mcdonald's campaign), the court case would have been avoided.
Therefore the organization reputation wouldn't have been smeared so badly, which results
in the loss of company's godwill. There's no doubt that the McLibel trial became a unique
and historic public tribunal of enquiry into many aspects of the food industry and modern
Corporations. Despite all the odds being stacked completely against those representing
the public interest. The company's completely in a untenable position trying to suppress
widespread public criticisms.
Conclusions
As cited by Anderson(1992) weaknesses in most case studies of activism is that similar
case studies should be conducted that examine activism from the perspective of both the
organizations and of the activists groups, which I feel it is applicable to this study of
the McLibel case. In my research for preparing this assignment, I've came across more
literature and disseminated information from the small activist group of London
Greenpeace versus the large multi-national corporation of McDonald's. This study also
points to the need of more studies that examine the special problems of international
communication. The actions multi-national c McDonald's triggered activist conflict not
only in London, but in 
other different countries as well. 
If public relations practitioners are to assess issues successfully and identify publics
that are likely to become active on those issues, they must look beyond the confines of
their own culture and beyond the borders of their own country, Anderson (1992).