People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is taking KFC and parent company YUM Brands to court over alleged false claims regarding the company’s animal welfare practices involving the 700 million chickens it purchases yearly for its international chain of fast food restaurants. The complaint filed in California Superior Court is the latest in a highly visible public relations campaign orchestrated by the animal rights group against KFC. It is the predictable result of attempts by corporations to “compromise” with groups openly sworn to end all human “domination” over animals whether for food, clothing, entertainment or pets.

The long and short of why KFC’s litany of conciliatory actions aimed at complying with PETA’s demands failed to meet those objectives is simple. Corporations involved in the use of nature’s resources – whether those resources are domestic or wild, involve animals or resources such as energy, minerals, timber or anything else – are viewed as enemies of the earth. By courting the animal and environmental groups, industry leaders only empower their adversaries and increase the credibility of those groups among followers, the public, the press and public policy makers. By contrast, when multi-national corporations or industry leaders such as KFC act so obsequiously to groups like PETA, they are perceived as weak and probably “guilty” of some or all offenses alleged by their opposition.

Die-hard followers of hard line animal rights and environmental groups want nothing short of the end to activities such as hunting, trapping, the use of fur in fashion, fishing etc. Nothing corporate resource users can do or say will satisfy the more extreme members of the animal rights and environmental community.

The leaders of the animal and environmental groups as well as their colleagues in the more “mainstream” animal welfare organizations are a somewhat different story than the cadre of idealistic operatives willing to picket, protest and even run nude through city streets to make a campaign point. Whether the CEOs of these groups subscribe to a no-meat, no leather, no-fish, no-poultry ideology or eat bacon and eggs for breakfast and lobster and steak for dinner, they understand and know how to obtain global power over resource-reliant entities.

Decades of creating résumés as keepers of the environment have put these groups in positions where they are ready to assume the role of regulator and overseer of the “offending” industries. They need only wait until the world becomes distraught over exposés of the environmental harm fisheries, farms, biotech research firms, logging operations, mines, and other resource “exploiters” are doing before their organizations are asked to step in as champions of the earth and assume the role of industry police. Controlling what essentially is the world’s food supply is real power. That’s the big picture.

KFC’s part in the theater of manners produced and directed by animal and environmental NGOs is quite illuminating in terms of the reality of what it means to “deal with your enemy.” KFC apparently forgot that PETA’s take on poultry is not one where appeasement is possible. The animal rights group quite tastelessly equated the raising of broilers to the Nazi death camps during World War II. KFC also appears to have not notices the “links” on the PETA website denouncing KFC to its “vegan” starter kits. Vegan groups don’t believe in humane treatment or slaughter of animals. They believe that animals should not be ranched, raised, slaughtered or eaten at all. The theme from the movie “Finding Nemo” says it all. Vegans believe that all animals whether fish or fowl, beef cattle or sows are “friends not food.” Still the fried chicken restaurant chain insisted on following the advice of their public relations advisors and has gone to almost extreme measures to appease animal rights groups like PETA.

KFC’s President Cheryl Bachelder flew on the company’s corporate jet to meet with PETA Founder Ingrid Newkirk in hopes of negotiating an end to the advocacy effort employed by PETA against the fried chicken chain. That move may be recommended in “Introduction to Public Relations 101” but its only effect was to portray PETA as powerful and KFC as subservient. President Bachelder’s homage to PETA’s Newkirk served only to create the equally powerful perception in the public’s mind that KFC must be guilty of something or it wouldn’t have made the pilgrimage to PETA.

After the meeting, KFC believed it was taking the high road when the company announced the formation of KFC’s Animal Welfare Council. The advisory group was packed with experts sympathetic to animal rights ideologies including the executive director of the American Humane Association’s farm animals division to provide humane husbandry standards for chicken suppliers to KFC. (Confidential sources within the animal rights community suggest that one or more members of the KFC Council covertly direct animal rights investigators to suppliers where problems detected by the Council can be used to “expose” KFC for alleged violations of their own standards whether those problems were being corrected or not.) PETA saw the move as a sign of weakness.

PETA ignored the sincere effort by KFC and denounced KFC’s Animal Welfare Council as corporate window dressing. Creating the blue ribbon advisory panel wasn’t good enough for PETA.

PETA blasted KFC’s conciliatory moves and labeled the company as synonymous with “cruelty.” PETA then turned to KFC’s pitchman in its very successful $200 million TV ad campaign, former Seinfeld star, Jason Alexander. After issuing a number of threats about what PETA intended to do to Alexander’s reputation, PETA spokesmen threatened to picket the Los Angeles production of “The Producers” staring Alexander.

PETA’s influence among the entertainment community is impressive. Thanks to early ties with Alec Baldwin and Kim Bassinger, PETA became identified with Paramount Studios. PETA and the entire animal rights/environmental community are highly successful exploiting entertainers between jobs or whose careers are either just getting started or on the wane. PETA gets headlines and headlines are how television and movie actors get noticed. In June, Alexander announced to PETA “I am your ally” and quit KFC.

Topping the insults rained down upon KFC was the European humiliation of YUM Brands CEO David Novak who was covered with fake blood and chicken feathers by members of the European group, Animal Defenders, who chanted “Shame on you for cruelty to chickens,” during Novak’s visit to a KFC restaurant in Hanover, Germany.

KFC’s actions in attempting to compromise with PETA were quite predictable. As mentioned they are straight from the primer on corporate public relations.

The futility of relying on traditional public relations techniques can be seen in the ascension of U.S. Senator Bob Smith, a staunch Republican from New Hampshire to an animal rights champion. One of Smith’s aides decided the gruff conservative needed to soften his image. After viewing a number of PETA videos portraying alleged cruelty to helpless, voiceless animals Smith signed on and become an ardent PETA supporter in Congress. The smoke and mirrors game played by the animal rights community convinced Smith that he was both morally correct in following the PETA agenda and following the will of the public. Just as animal rights and environmental groups posture as the voice of the voiceless animals and wild places, so too do they claim to speak for the public.

PETA sentiment is strong in urban circles – Washington DC, Boston, New York City – and among staffers in the Halls of Congress but is not the view of the public at large. Only five percent of New Hampshire voters agreed with Smith’s “environmental” leanings during his 2002 re-election bid. PETA’s pitch to the public, the press and policy makers like Bob Smith is very compelling. Smith listened and believed PETA. Smith is now his state’s former U.S. Senator.

Corporate attempts to similarly apply the techniques of brand marketing/traditional public relations spin to counter the allegations of animal rights and environmental advocacy are fruitless. The former simply is not compatible with the latter on any level. PR and brand advertising is equated in the public’s mind with “selling” something. Advocacy is seen as “helping” the helpless.

Few consultancies understand the immense pull of advocacy. Those that do, and the PEAT Institute is one, demonstrate strategies that neutralize NGO rhetoric and provide substantive guidelines for sustainable, socially just and environmentally friendly resource use without its clients having to surrender their corporate independence.

Before KFC, PETA’s campaign against fast food chains became a juggernaut in the wake of its declared victories over McDonalds, Burger King and Wendy’s fast food restaurants. Animal advocates currently are allowing the big hamburger chains a brief period of quiet. But that does not mean the burger barons are home free.

Each either is or soon will be targets of the anti-fat/obesity campaign now emerging from the NGO sector. PETA’s sister groups including, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), are busy working on putting necessary components of a truly effective and quite global anti-obesity campaign in place. Already the World Health Organization (WHO) has signed onto the anti-obesity effort being advanced by NGOs and action on this issue is emerging in the United Kingdom.

Another reason for temporarily taking the heat off of the burger chains is the utility of food giants such as McDonalds in forcing other sectors of the food service industry into compliance with animal rights demands. McDonalds is responsible for removing the far more environmentally friendly and healthful genetically modified potato from North American markets and recently advanced another NGO theme – discontinuance of the use of prophylactic antibiotics in the livestock trade – by announcing it wants its suppliers to halt use of antibiotics in poultry, beef and pork.

McDonald’s influence in terminating plantings of the genetically enhanced potato strain designed to discourage harmful bacteria and curb the use of toxic pesticides has had terrible environmental consequences. Massive fish kills caused by pesticide runoff have been experienced around Canada’s potato-rich farmland on Prince Edward Island. The antibiotic campaign pushed by NGOs confuses antibiotic abuse with the medical necessity of its moderate and veterinarian-approved use to prevent disease among herds and flocks. The health and quality of American beef, pork and poultry will suffer.

In truth, the burger chains are seen as enjoying an illusionary hiatus and will again be fighting for their corporate market share if not their existence and autonomy once the KFC action is settled.

Perhaps one of the more important lessons to be learned from the KFC incident is what happens when resource-reliant industries, corporations, or other entities allow their enemies to roam freely within their corporate “tents.” No matter what KFC tried, PETA and friends deemed them unacceptable and inflicted hugely embarrassing public relations defeats on the chicken chain.

The most important point is that in order for a global trader or any other resource user to be truly ethical in terms of the way it deals with the public, its staff and the environment it must adopt strategies of their own and not listen to the seductive overtures of groups openly sworn to end their existence or that are opting to dictate corporate policies.

Public relations spin, brand marketing, and empowering animal and environmental rights groups cannot sell the idea or reality that fisheries, biotechnology applied to food or healthcare, hunting, angling, farming, mining etc. are ethical, socially just and environmentally friendly. Corporate ethics must permeate a company from within and be demonstrated though actions, not words. To accept the dictates of NGOs such as PETA and conform corporate behavior to such outside forces locks a company or industry into the perception that they are indeed environmental offenders incapable of conducting their own affairs responsibly or ethically.