Skip to main content

Chain Restaurants Show Social Responsibility by Saving Fisheries

When a restaurant chain serves millions of customers every day, adding or removing a menu item could greatly impact the environment. For example, when McDonald’s introduced Alaskan Pollock, the consumption of Alaskan Pollock increased dramatically. McDonald’s strategy would not only impact the stock of Alaskan Pollock but also affect other species in the same food supply chain, such as Steller sea lions and fur seals. The fact is McDonald’s buys 50,000 metric tons of whitefishes every year.

The good news is several restaurant chains, including McDonald’s Corp, Yum Brands Inc., and Darden Restaurants, have joined the growing movement toward eco-friendly practices to help sustain species (The Wall Street Journal, July 12). Fishes sold in McDonald’s come from sources that meet sustainability guidelines, such as the ones given by the Marine Stewardship Council. Darden Restaurants, which owns Red Lobster, incorporate more grains in recipes to reduce seafood-based consumptions.

Another alternative is to promote aquaculture and raise seafood “in enclosed, controlled environment.” The problem is not all fishes can survive with aquaculture. Some sophisticated seafood consumers may not like raised seafood.

Here, I am not trying to put all social responsibility to restaurant chains or the corporate America. I argue that everyone living in this world is accounted for sustainability. What are your suggestions?

References:
Ziobro, P. (2010, July 12). Restaurants mobilize to save fisheries. The Wall Street Journal, p. B4. Picture was downloaded from: http://www.fdb.org.pk/readmore4.html

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Is It OK for Hotel Staff to Wear Piercings and Tattoos?

Time has changed. I see more and more college students wearing piercings and tattoos nowadays, but is it OK for hotel staff to wear piercings and tattoos? The answer is “no, no, no.” According a report at USAToday.com, customers across the board do not want to see any hotel workers with pierced eyebrow, pierced tongue, tattooed arm, or nose ring. Some may argue that tattooed and pierced workers may seem more acceptable in edgy boutique hotels as compared to the big franchised hotels, but the survey results did not find any differences among a variety of lodging products. Many respondents believe people who wear visible tattoos and piercings are taking a high risk of their professional lives. If you stay in a hotel, do you mind being served by tattooed and/or pierced staff? What if you are the one who makes the hiring decision? References: USAToday.com: http://tinyurl.com/linchikwok08042010 Picture was downloaded from http://tinyurl.com/linchikwok08042010P

Where Coffee Meets Culture: My Experience with Orientation, Socialization, and Culture at Dutch Bros (by Karina Martinez)

When people think of Dutch Bros, they usually picture colorful drinks, loud music, free stickers, and baristas so friendly they’ll jump in the car with you.  As someone who has had the opportunity to work for Dutch Bros, I can say that the energy customers feel isn’t an act; it is the result of intentional and effective HR practices that are focused on orientation, socialization, and culture. From your very first day, you experience how these practices shape the entire Dutch experience.  Orientation, Socialization, Culture   In HR management, orientation is the introduction of the role and company to new hires. This is intended to help them feel welcomed and informed. Socialization goes beyond the initial training process; it’s how new hires grasp the organization’s values, behaviors, and traditions over time. Together, these fun...

Average/Below-Average Looking People Can Earn as Much as the Attractive Ones

Research has shown that attractive people can not only charm interviewers (and thus get hired easier), they are also more likely to earn more as compared to those with average or below-average looks. Accordingly to a Wall Street Journal report , attractive people can earn 3% - 4% more than a person with below-average look. If such difference adds up over a person’s lifetime, an attractive person can earn up to $230,000 more than an ugly worker; even an average-looking person can make $140,000 more. Another relevant Wall Street Journal report also suggests that workers who exercise regularly can earn 9% more than those who do not. If that is the fact (I believe it is), is it legal? Can employers do that? Linchi Kwok and Otto @SyracuseU Career Fair To my knowledge, no law or regulation under EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) considers a person’s look as a protective class. It is true that people in general have an idea of what kind of person they feel attract...