Kfc in India – Ethical Issues

Case Summary

Due to the economic liberalization policy of the Indian government, KFC has entered to India during the late 1990s. However, the entering of KFC into India posts a threat to domestic business since food is expensive, which only the upper middle and affluent classes could afford. Even though, the government claims that it would create employment and develop infrastructure, this would only bring jobs to a handful of educated people and displaced the poor majority. Moreover, KFC represents a higher standard chicken business in India, which post as a threat to domestic business market share. Secondly, malnutrition problem in India is severe; hence, protesters see that it is unethical of KFC to worsen this problem. Also, KFC has been using unusually high amount of MSG, has failed to disclose the seasonings used and genetically engineered and overfed chickens to get fat faster. And, not only that KFC has been consistently reported over its cruel treatments to the birds, but the protesters also argued MNCs has posted a threat to India food's security. Undeterred by the protests, KFC planned for further expansion to metropolitan area and the battle between KFC and PETA continued.

1. Since the entry to India in 1995, KFC has been facing protests by cultural economic activist and farmers. What are the reasons for these protests and do you think these reasons are justified? Explain.

Five 5 main reasons for protest are: 1) Threat to domestic business, 2) Cultural Invasion, 3) Malnutrition problem, 4) Abuse of chickens, and 5) Threat to poorer sections of economy's crops productions.

I believe, to certain degree, these reasons are justified. Partly, I view this controversy as political issues since Indian government was inviting MNCs to establish fast-food chains, which only benefits the minority upper middle class. Thus it is the government responsibility to solve these problems prior the economic liberalization. Moreover, I believe the entrance of KFC would force higher food standards on Indian lower-standard businesses. And with higher competition, prices should fall, which would benefit the consumers. Therefore KFC should not be held responsible against these charges.

Still, it is justifiable to protest against the poor treatment of chickens and poor food quality. Even though these chickens are raised for food, it is unethical to raise them under poor conditions. Chickens suffering from illnesses should not be sold, and the crippled ones should receive proper medication. Leaving them in pains from infections and injuries because KFC believes they are going to be killed anyway is not justifiable. Since KFC produces highly standardized foods that are sold globally, it is unjustifiable for KFC to allow lower production standards just because they operate in lower food standard country. Thus, I believe KFC should be held responsible for the entire supply chain to meet global standards, from raising, to producing and selling them in restaurants. Moreover, I believe KFC is responsible to serve foods that pass health standards. They should provide seasonings used in preparations, and use MSG in permitted levels. KFC should comply with the regulations and improve its standards like other fast-food restaurants. Hence, I believe it's justifiable to protest against the abuse of chickens, and the poor food quality.

2. PETA has been protesting against KFC in India since the late 1990s. What are the reasons for the PETA's protests against KFC and how did KFC's management react to them? Do you agree with PETA that KFC has been cruel toward the birds and hence it should leave India?

The reasons for PETA protesting against KFC had been on the grounds that KFC was extremely cruel to chickens, and did not provide even minimum hygiene for the birds. And despite repeated appeals to the management, KFC had not cared to improve the conditions and its treatments of birds. Ignoring the protest, KFC added three more outlets and later on, Yum! Restaurants International replied back that KFC was committed to the "well-being and humane treatment of chickens" and they required their suppliers to follow the welfare guidelines developed by the company. Yet, PETA was not convinced and had continued its protests.

I agreed with PETA that KFC has been cruel to the birds; but this does not mean KFC should leave India. I agree on the grounds that KFC should provide these birds standard hygiene, raise them with proper care, and medications, and use the mode of transportation stated in Indian's legislative. However, if KFC is willing to improve its supply chain,