KEF brand Case Study

Being the second largest fast food restaurant worldwide, PETA has put a footlight on the company and the way their chickens are raised and treated by the suppliers. Throughout the boycott, PETA uses questionable tactics towards KEF in addition to implementing celebrity spokespeople to support their cause.

Petal’s main objectives are to pressure KEF into satisfying their demands and in turn forcing the creation of stricter standards across the industry when it comes to the treatment of chickens.

We Will Write a Custom Case Study Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

Analysis PETA is upset with the way that chickens are raised and treated in the facilities that supply KEF with their food. Their objectives with this lawsuit are to exploit the unethical practices that KEF partakes in as well as pressure them to create stricter standards for their chicken suppliers. By tarnishing and attacking the KEF brand, PETA hopes that the company will have no choice but to use their massive market share to make an impact on the fast food industry as a whole.

Setting higher standards for the treatment of chickens may lead to a domino effect and other restaurants would then follow suit.

On the other hand, I believe KEF has a solid defense against the allegations brought forth by PETA. As a corporation, KEF does not own any faceless where chickens are eased and killed to be sold. The company follows all laws that are In place In the countries where KEF restaurants are located. To go even a step further, the standards that are In place actually exceed the standards of the National Chicken Council.

KEF stands by the tact that all they are doing Is satisfying customer demand, which is entirely ethical. The strategies that PETA uses during their boycotts are questionable and sometimes even illegal.

During an opening of a new store in Germany, KEF CEO David Novak was souse w a e K 01000 DAY apt A protestors Ana covered In chicken Tanners to assemble the “murdering” of chickens. In the United States, PETA boycotter smeared fake blood on the windows of KEF restaurants and protested against the company inside the stores until they were escorted out by security.

Another tactic that was used during the protests was the handing out of bloody toy chickens with their throats slit to symbolize the mistreatment of the birds. In my opinion, these tactics are not only radical but they give PETA a bad image. The demands that PETA have of KEF I believe are unreasonable.

In order for PETA to be satisfied, KEF is to force their suppliers to implement many new elements into heir facilities. These elements include installing slaughterhouse cameras, integrate gas killing of the chickens, more room for the birds to move around and create chicken-catching mechanisms.

If KEF is only able to do business with suppliers who follow all of these guidelines, there will be little to no options to choose from and it would definitely hinder the business. All of these standards would not only be economically challenging, but would make it nearly impossible to satisfy the poultry demand. Conclusion The Campaign Against KEF may have brought attention to the issue of the statement of chickens, but it wasn’t exactly effective.

During the seven-year boycott, KEF managed to open over 4,000 new stores and their share price nearly quadrupled.

I believe that it PETA went about their boycotts in a more peaceful way, I would have more of a neutral opinion on the matter. If the way that KEF conducts their business is within industry rules and regulations as well as abides by the laws put in place, it should be a non-issue. PETA has the right to be upset by the way animals are raised and treated, but that directly relates to the suppliers of the chicken and not the restaurant chains who purchase them.