On October 21^st, McDonald’s announced their global sales dropped by 3.3% in the third quarter. This was more than the expected decline of 2.9%.

McDonald’s has always tried to convey the value proposition of  “ friendliness, cleanliness, consistency, and convenience” to its customers. Ironically, the CEO, Mr. Don Thompson said the food safety issue took place in China was one of the main reasons for this decline. In this summer, an undercover TV report showed that one of McDonald’s food suppliers, the HUSI Food Company supplied burgers and chickens by using expired meat. Such case brought a negative impact on McDonald’s sales as Chinese people nowadays have become increasingly sensitive about food safety.

I found that in one of  Ziqi’s blogs, she also mentioned about this food scandal. I strongly agree with her recommendation of  opening the factories to allow people to visit. As more people get involved in the production process, that means the whole society will pay more attention to McDonald’s and its products’ quality. Furthermore, this activity also provides McDonald’s a way to regain consumers’ trust and confidence.

McDonald’s first entered Chinese market in 1990, and within 24 years, more than 2,000 restaurants are opened in China. With such rapid expansion, China is now one of McDonald’s most important target markets. After the food scandal, McDonald’s quickly set up a FAQ page on the website. I think this is a good way to build a reliable customer relationship. As customers get more detail answers from the company, it helps McDonald’s to eliminate the negative social image. Furthermore, despite Ziqi’s recommendation, in order to avoid such scandal in the future, I think it is crucial for McDonald’s to look for a reliable supplier as its key partner. Meanwhile, the company needs to reinforce the management of the whole supply chain and to make sure they sell high quality food to all customers. Therefore, McDonald’s can remain consumer loyalty and expand its potential profit.

From the news I read, Tsilhqot’in people claimed that Taseko Mines Ltd’s project brought negative impacts to their daily life and the whole environment.

Acting as an external factor, the First Nations have the power to affect the business’s plans and model. In this situation, the tribal park took over the mine site, which was previously owned by Taseko. This restricted the company’s access to the key resources: mines. Lack of necessary resources will reduce the production of goods and services. Thus, the company’s main goal – profit maximization, would become hard to achieve.

In 2013, even though Taseko came out with a commitment (the company will help protect the environment during production process), this commitment seemed hard to come true because the ecosystem in Tsilhqot’in was still being affected due to logging and pollution.

From my perspective, if a company only focuses on gaining higher profit at the expense of the environment which the local habitants have been trying to protect, this will make the relationship between the company and the First Nations even worse. Instead, Taseko should treat the Tsilhqot’in as key partner when setting the company’s plan. Building a good relationship between these two groups and protecting Tsilhqot’in people’s interests can actually avoid such conflict to take place. Taseko should improve their business model and focus on using other greener resources. They should also negotiate with Tsilhqot’in people, sign up an agreement and get the permission about what kinds of activities they can do in the title area. Since the whole society nowadays pays close attention to the living environment and the rights of the First Nations, if Taseko keeps ignoring people’s interests or breaks the agreement, this company will definitely be at risk.