Kfc - Peta Showdown Case Study

Post its successful campaign against McDonald's, PETA approached KFC with the intention of bringing about reforms in Animal Welfare Policy through one-to-one talks and direct involvement in policy making. However their relationship turned ugly when KFC failed to live up to its word and the fall out is evident in the correspondence between the two organisations through 2001 to 2003.

PETA (People for Ethical Treatment of Animals) was dissatisfied with the industry guidelines on chicken welfare set in U.S by the NCC (National Chicken Council ) describing them as 'baggy' and 'imprecise'. The loose terms such as 'proper' and 'adequate' in the NCC guidelines allowed for a lot of loopholes which suppliers in the chicken industry were quick to take advantage of. PETA wanted to see major changes in the treatment of chickens and approached KFC with this demand. Rather than risk strained relationships with KFC by starting head on with a public onslaught against the firm, the vegan campaign coordinator of PETA, Bruce Friedrich initiated talks on this issue through a mail on April 25, 2001 addressed to the President and Chief Concept Officer of KFC, Cheryl Bachelder. Though the email was very diplomatic and the tone was polite, the underlying threat was very evident. PETA made it a point to categorically mention the known atrocities committed in KFC slaughterhouses. PETA offered to help KFC in policy design to curb the aforementioned cruelty.

KFC responded positively to PETA's email. Jonathan Blum, senior Vice-President of public affairs at KFC assured Friedrich that KFC would always be open to suggestions and the issue of animal cruelty will be given top priority henceforth. Blum personally met with Friedrich and promised to keep PETA updated on the developments on the same. KFC and PETA's relationship continued to thrive over the next three months as Blum and Friedrich spoke extensively over the phone, chiefly to discuss potential members of a corporate panel in KFC dedicated exclusively to the issue of animal welfare in slaughterhouses. Even though KFC refused to commit to giving PETA an official place in the panel, talks between the two organisations continued on amicable terms. Each party spoke favourably of the other before the media too. Around August 2001, Friedrich expressed his concern about the timeline of the proposed changes. In the first panel meeting in September 2001, Dr Steven Gross, PETA's lead scientist was invited to put forward proposals to the panel. This resulted in a lengthy report of the proposals being sent by PETA to KFC. Not only did KFC fail to respond to the suggested proposals it also stopped updating PETA about developments regarding the same. A concerned Friedrich still refrained from launching an open campaign against KFC, despite being excluded from the panel decisions and continued correspondence with KFC via email before going public with the media. Friedrich pointed out the lack of 'open and honest' communication which Blum had guaranteed in the beginning of their association. Friedrich was extremely frustrated, and rightly so at Blum's response which vaguely mentioned reviews and discussions by the panel on the proposed changes without mentioning any tangible decisions taken towards implementing the same.

It is clear that KFC, like any other firm would be reluctant to adopt policy changes that would increase the cost of production. No doubt, KFC thought it would manage to successfully stall PETA by ignore their frequent queries on progress towards the Animal Welfare Issue. KFC probably expected PETA to soon tire of KFCs lack of response and wash their hands off the affair. But this is far from what actually transpired.

This was when PETA decided to go public with the fact that KFC had done virtually nothing to improve the situation in its slaughterhouses, by posting emails from Blum indicating the above on its website. Without having accomplished much in the next year and half, KFC continues to strain relations with PETA officials with its lackadaisical attitude towards animal welfare and it's reluctance to share any specifics with