Mats Lederhausen formerly ran McDonald’s Sweden. He now works out of corporate headquarters in Oakbrook, Ill., where, as executive vice president for global strategy and business development, he argues that doing good is good business. “Smarter employees, smarter investors, and smarter customers–all choices being equal–are going to invest their time, energy, and money with companies that they trust and that they know do better things,” he declares. “We want the world to be a better place because of McDonald’s.”
But what about the food? Does selling burgers and fries make the world a better place, with obesity and heart disease near epidemic? Not according to Paul Hawken, founder of Smith & Hawken and author of two books on sustainability. “The question we have to ask,” Hawken says, “is, What is enough for McDonald’s? Does McDonald’s want to see the rest of the world drink the equivalent of 597 cans of soda pop a year, as do Americans? Do they think every third global meal should be comprised of greasy meat, fries, and caramelized sugar?”
Some people have gone so far as to say that McDonald’s would truly be socially responsible only by shutting down. “That really pisses me off, quite frankly,” Lederhausen replies. “You don’t attract 46 million customers daily by happenstance. You do it because you fill a need that is pretty strong and because your products are pretty damn good. I’m not saying there aren’t a lot of things we can do better. But, I mean, give us a break. We deserve a break today!”
He has a point. McDonald’s employs 1.5 million people worldwide. It offers healthy choices on the menu, and not just in Sweden. Its restaurants are no more guilty of selling fat than the earnest do-gooders at Ben & Jerry’s. But corporate social responsibility isn’t simple. In environmental terms, soy is a much more efficient way to make protein than beef–as the people at DuPont, who are big into soy, like to point out. Can selling burgers and soy both be socially responsible? Who gets to decide?