Firstly, I find it ironic that Inks is unwilling to take any responsibility for being late. Who does this communist think he is? My suggestion for him is to drive a Ford f150, so that he can avoid this “bus” problem in the future.
As Inks sits (pondering about condiment packages), men are fighting wars to protect his right to live in a peaceful society. However, since he is shocked by their ‘thickness’, I must address this issue.
His attitude (that seems ultimately biocentric) is missing the big picture. Condiment packages are thick for a reason. People would hate to have these packages burst in the bag …especially since paper bags will not retain these liquefied substances. It is extremely relevant to point out that McDonald’s does use paper bags (indicating that they have already addressed the concerns of the environmental-conscious consumer). However, this paper bag will create a problem if the condiment packages are prone to bursting. Possible problems include: unnecessary allergic reactions and clothing stains.
Corporations must keep their consumer at the center of all planning and strategy. If they don’t, they are doomed to fail. This may be a sad reality, but most consumers today would rather have their condiments stay in the package than slowly change the world for the better (especially if those changes will not be noticeable within their lifetime). I have no intention of sounding anthropocentric, however, corporations should be somewhat human-focused as they adjust/improve their strategies.
Furthermore, it is important not to get too environmentally focused that we lose sight of the people. This reminds me of when Kitty Walker addressed Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth by saying: “Here’s an inconvenient truth, in Africa 3,000 children die everyday from malaria. What can save them? DDT. The environmentalists, though, they don’t want to lift the ban on DDT because it might thin the shells of some bird’s eggs, ok? Excuse me, while I go projectile vomit on Al Gore.” If McDonald’s focuses on producing all-environmentally friendly products they may lose their competitive advantage and sight of the true consumer desires.
If I ignore the large problems concerning Inks’ miscalculations (considering he assumed he was the ‘average consumer’ with the ‘average order’), I still need to address the waste/garbage example. Sorting garbage does create adverse effects...that’s biology 101. Let’s take a Styrofoam burger box and an apple. If we separate the box from the apple, the apple will rot while the box remains in the ground. However, if we put them together, the rotting apple will produce chemicals that will help break down the Styrofoam. If we continue to use green bins, we will create a concentrated mess for future generations. Our landfills may be smaller, yet they will be concentrated and our children’s children will be left with the responsibility to clean them up. It is our “quick fix” and it is not good enough.
I do support recycling.
Now, Inks also brings up the interesting point of corporate responsibility when it comes to consumer awareness. Is it the corporate world’s responsibility to inform the public about sustainability? I say no. They have enough to worry about as they: climb out of this global recession; combat international corporations; and improve lives through fiscal responsibility. Corporations provide society with new innovations, careers and goods/services. If they are financially responsible (resulting in growth and job creation), employees will be given the opportunity to stimulate the economy.
It is then the consumer’s responsibility to become informed. Change must start with the individual. If the individuals (a.k.a. consumers) change, then corporations will change to target those consumers.
The fact that McDonald’s has an environmental sustainability section of their websites is above and beyond what they should feel obligated to do (unless financial data indicates that their consumer demand will benefit from this action).
