Understanding Beef as a Business: A Corporate Social Responsibility Analysis of Chipotle Mexican Grill

Seale Pacic University

Digital Commons @ SPU

Honors Projects University Scholars

Spring June 3rd, 2016

Understanding Beef as a Business: A Corporate

Social Responsibility Analysis of Chipotle Mexican

Grill

Megan Wilford

Seale Pacic University

Follow this and additional works at: h=ps://digitalcommons.spu.edu/honorsprojects

Part of the Agribusiness Commons, Business Administration, Management, and Operations

Commons, and the Business Law, Public Responsibility, and Ethics Commons

<is Honors Project is brought to you for free and open access by the University Scholars at Digital Commons @ SPU. It has been accepted for

inclusion in Honors Projects by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ SPU.

Recommended Citation

Wilford, Megan, "Understanding Beef as a Business: A Corporate Social Responsibility Analysis of Chipotle Mexican Grill" (2016).

Honors Projects. 59.

h=ps://digitalcommons.spu.edu/honorsprojects/59

UNDERSTANDING BEEF AS A BUSINESS

A CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ANALYSIS OF CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL

MEGAN WILFORD

FACULTY ADVISOR, DR. KENMAN WONG

SECOND READER, DR. BRUCE CONGDON

A project submitted in partial fulfillment

of the requirements of the University Scholars Program

Seattle Pacific University

2016

Approved: Dr. Jeff Keuss

Date: June 3

, 2016

Abstract

This project is a Corporate Social Responsibility Analysis of Chipotle Mexican Grill that seeks

to answer the question: Has Chipotle adequately and honestly incorporated Corporate Social

Responsibility and stakeholder value creation into their beef sourcing? Industrialized beef

production has changed the way we live, making meat more accessible and affordable than ever.

In order to provide such a large quantity of beef, sacrifices have been made regarding our health,

animal wellbeing, and the environment. Chipotle Mexican Grill claims to source their beef

differently, patenting the phrase Food with Integrity. Ultimately, this project will determine

whether or not Chipotle provides value for their stakeholders in regards to their beef sourcing,

and will be organized into three major categories: consumer health, animal welfare, and

environmental impact.

PART I

Introduction

When it comes to a quick lunch, there are a multitude of options for a consumer to choose

from. Whether it is a gyro, a hamburger, or slice of pizza, all of these entrees are easily at the

fingertips of anyone willing to forfeit $8. To make a decision, consumers will most likely

consider taste preference and price, doubtfully thinking about the origins of their food. They will

make their decision, eat their lunch, and move on. From the business perspective, there are many

more decisions when it comes to sourcing ingredients, especially meat. Some companies choose

to not advertise the quality or origins of their meat, while large fast food chains are expected to

have at least some transparency. Chipotle Mexican Grill, the popular Mexican-inspired fast food

chain, claims to be a healthier lunch option with the best ingredients in the industry. Recent food

illnesses aside, Chipotle’s business model has done remarkably well, and consumers seem to be

buying into what they’re selling: Food with Integrity.

This project will serve as a Corporate Social Responsibility Analysis of Chipotle

Mexican Grill, particularly their beef sourcing in the United States. The fast food industry is a

significant driver behind the current national beef processing system today, and is a part of the

reason why roughly 75% of all the beef in America is a product of three companies (Bjerklie,

2010, p. 145). Chipotle makes many claims on their website and in their Annual Reports about

the ways they challenge the current industrial beef system; they claim to have environmental

concern, higher than average animal welfare standards, and natural hormone-free beef, all of

which are uncommon characteristics in our current system. The driving research question of this

project is as follows: Has Chipotle adequately and honestly incorporated Corporate Social

Responsibility and stakeholder value creation into their beef sourcing?

Corporate Social Responsibility

Though many companies discuss their Corporate Social Responsibility (or CSR)

commitments in their annual reports, there is no one single definition for CSR. This provides

organizations the ability to claim they are socially responsible without real accountability for

doing so. However, for the sake of this project, there will need to be one clear definition of CSR

and stakeholder value. Typically, most journals will define CSR as a company’s commitment (or

self-regulation) to positively impact the community, economy, and environment. For this project,

CSR will be defined in conjunction with Stakeholder Management, with an emphasis on the self-

proclaimed accountability Chipotle Mexican Grill has for all of its stakeholders. It is important to

first draw a distinction between stakeholders and shareholders; any publically held company will

have shareholders, these are the individuals who have invested in the company. A stakeholder,

on the other hand, is a term that represents any person, group, organization, and environment that

affects or is affected by the company (CSR Quest). Every company has their own unique set of

stakeholders, and Chipotle’s Stakeholder Management practices will be explained in more detail

later on.

In a text book titled “Business Ethics: A Managerial Approach,” R. Edward Freeman, one

of the seminal figures in Stakeholder theory, writes what he (along with three other professors)

believes to be the best definition and framework for the stakeholder approach. In short, the

stakeholder approach is another way of doing business; it is a model that fully integrates all

relevant stakeholders into all business decisions, though not necessarily equally weighted.

According to the authors, shareholder value is tied with stakeholder value, and the best results

arise when the two are actively working together. (Freeman, Martin, Werhane, & Wicks, 2010,

p. 76).

Before outlining the Stakeholder Framework, the authors clarify that the stakeholder

approach is still concerned about the shareholders and financial profit; shareholders are

themselves an important stakeholder (Freeman et al., 2010, p. 77). In some cases, certain

stakeholders’ concerns may carry more importance than others. The stakeholder approach does

not need to address every stakeholder concern in each decision, though oppositional trade-offs

between stakeholder value is discouraged (Freeman et al., 2010, p. 77). The key is for

companies to make decisions that create value for all stakeholders over the long-term.

Stakeholder Framework

In order to evaluate the success of Chipotle’s CSR and Stakeholder Management

approach, I will be using the three levels of the Stakeholder Framework: value proposition of the

organization, the principles for stakeholder cooperation, and respect for societal standards of

conduct (Freeman at al., 2010, p. 78). According to the authors of this framework, following

these three levels is what makes a business both ethical and successful. First, the value

proposition provides an “end goal” for a firm. Much like a mission or values statement, the value

proposition is what the firm is continually driving toward. For Chipotle, their value proposition is

to “change the way people think about and eat fast food” (Chipotle Annual Report, 2014, p. 2).

The second level, principles for stakeholder cooperation, encompasses the dealings and decisions

the firm makes in order to live up to its stakeholder goals. Some of Chipotle’s values and

practices include locally sourced food, antibiotic-free meat, and grass-fed beef. The third level of

the Stakeholder Framework is respecting societal standards of conduct, focusing on cultural and

legal boundaries, and providing external accountability since the first two levels of the

framework are self-defined and referential. This level largely takes into account the concerns and

needs of the consumers; for example, a restaurant would not focus on advertising and serving

barbecued meat in a vegetarian community.

Later in this project, I will closely examine Chipotle’s own words through their Annual

Reports, website, and public statements by executives. Using this information, I will determine

the Stakeholder Framework and value proposition that Chipotle has publically presented,

compare it with their principles for stakeholder cooperation, and evaluate it in context of societal

standards. The purpose of this project is not to criticize Chipotle’s mission statement and values,

but determine whether or not their actions are truly in accordance with the value proposition they

presented. If Chipotle’s principles for stakeholder cooperation were not in accordance to their

value proposition, that would be dishonest and misleading, negatively affecting the consumers,

and not living up to the 3

level of the Stakeholder Framework.

Tradeoffs

Often when dealing with Stakeholder Management, “tradeoffs” are made; this occurs

when two stakeholder interests are either opposing, or simply cannot be met simultaneously.

Some tradeoffs may be intentional and strategic; for example, perhaps McDonald’s knows that

only a very small portion of their customers are vegetarian, so they decide to focus their menu on

meat options. On the other hand, some tradeoffs are unintentional and can be detrimental to a

business. For example, say that McDonald’s would like for their new guacamole product to have

a long shelf life to reduce cost and reduce waste (increasing shareholder value), but in doing so,

give their customers an unhealthy product full of preservatives (decreasing customer value).

Tradeoffs are sometimes positive, sometimes negative, and often inevitable. According to the

previously cited case study, the ideal business model does not run on a “zero-sum game where

value is to be divided among stakeholders and oppositional tradeoffs,” but the, “cooperation

among stakeholders [that] allows (and is necessary) for the expansion of value for all [in the

long-term]” (Freeman at al., 2010, p. 77).

Organization

In this project, I will identify Chipotle Mexican Grill’s value proposition, principles for

stakeholder cooperation, and stakeholders. I will divide the project into 3 common business

ethics categories in the food service industry: animal welfare, consumer health, and

environmental impact. These categories were chosen due to their relation and relevance to the

meat industry and beef sourcing. Before I address Chipotle’s beef sourcing, I will first give the

background and history of the beef processing industry in the United States, as well as the

industry norm for animal welfare, health, and environmental impact. Knowing this background

information will put into context Chipotle’s decisions on beef sourcing. I will also provide a

background of Chipotle and its co-CEO, Steve Ells. Understanding the roots of the restaurant

chain will help the reader understand its business model today.

For each CSR category, I will first identify the relevant stakeholders and then record

what Chipotle claims their practices are. Once Chipotle’s own standards are clear, I will use

research from outside sources, as well as Chipotle’s original sources, to weigh their actions

against their value proposition. Chipotle’s transparency and honesty, along with their actions

themselves and the associated tradeoffs, will help determine answers to my driving research

question: whether or not Chipotle has adequately incorporated Corporate Social Responsibility

and stakeholder value creation into their beef sourcing.

PART II: Industry Background

Industry Background & Fast Food

To this date, beef production is the largest segment of US agriculture (Explore Beef,

2016). American’s demand for meat has significantly increased in the last 60 years, and so has

our country’s ability to produce it. Though smaller fast food chains opened in the US in the

1920’s, McDonald’s ‘changed the game’ as the first fast food restaurant to use an assembly line

system. McDonald’s grew rapidly, with over 36,000 restaurants in 119 countries, serving 69

million customers a day. (Nowak, 2015). The largest purchaser of beef worldwide was able to

grow so quickly due to the food industry growing with it; meat processing plants were able to

adopt the same assembly line system as McDonald’s workers, and the beef industry became

completely mechanized (Kenner, Food Inc., 2007).

As of 2010, roughly 75% of US beef is owned by three companies: Tyson Foods, Cargill,

and JBS Swift. JBS, who owns Smithfield foods, is the largest meat company in the world

(Bjerklie, 2010, p. 145). Meat processing companies became larger and fewer in order to survive;

the red meat industry has operated on a low profit margin of 2% since the 1960’s. In order to

raise and slaughter 30 million cows a year, the business has had to redefine efficiency to produce

24.3 billion pounds of safe, affordable beef (USDA, 2014).

Corn-fed nation

The industrialization of the meat packing industry would not have been possible without

government intervention. In the United States, corn is highly subsidized by the Federal

government, resulting in thousands of genetically modified corn-based products on the shelves of

our grocery stores. Corn has not only become a staple in our diet, but in the diet of our food

(Pollan, 2006, p. 15). According to a popular documentary called Food, Inc., in 2009, 30% of

American soil was being used

to grow corn. Michael Pollan

writes in his book Omnivore’s

Dilemma that corn is the basis

for the entire industrialized

food chain, not just meat,

“When I started trying to

follow the industrial food

chain… I invariably found

myself in almost the same place: a farm field in the American Corn Belt” (Pollan, 2006, p. 18).

Pollan goes on to describe how corn fuels the diet of nearly all consumed cows, chickens, pigs,

and fish. Eating a meal of chicken nuggets and a Diet Coke can contain up to 30 different kinds

of modified corn (p. 20).

The low price of corn is what drives down the cost of raising cattle, and ultimately drives

down the cost of meat (Kenner, Food Inc., 2007). According to the United States Department of

Agriculture, there are currently more than 90 million acres of land with planted corn crops, and

“most of the crop is used as the main energy ingredient in livestock feed” (USDA 2014).

According to the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996, the US Government

has mandated that at least 90 million acres be used for corn, a 30 million increase since 1983

(USDA 2014).

The majority of beef in the United States is corn-fed. It is estimated that less than 1% of

the cattle raised for food in the US is 100% grass-fed, though the number is growing every year

(Weber, 2013). It’s also important to note that all cows start their lives on a grass diet for about

6-8 months while they are weaning off of their mothers. In January of 2016, the USDA revoked

its regulating the label “grass-fed,” due to the variety of unique conditions that different ranchers

qualify as grass-fed. Essentially, this means that ranchers and restaurants have the opportunity to

become 3

party certified, but there is no official, legal ruling to stop them from labeling

themselves as grass-fed (Linnekin, 2016). For example, McDonald’s writes on their website, that

“most of the cattle we use for our beef are raised in the U.S. on grass for the first part of their

lives… Later, the cattle are provided a balanced diet of grains, grasses, and minerals

(McDonalds.com). Here, McDonald’s is using clever marketing to describe how almost every

cow is raised in America: on a feedlot eating corn. Because of this misleading marketing,

Michael Pollan urges people to only buy beef with the label “100% grass-fed,” or “grass-

finished,” meaning the cow spent his entire life eating just grass (MichaelPollan.com).

From Farm to Feedlot

The industrial revolution of the meat packing industry has made beef widely affordable

and accessible for US citizens. In order to meet the demand, companies have had to introduce the

use of feedlots, grain-based diets, antibiotics, growth hormones, and a large amount of oil and

water. In order to fully understand Chipotle’s business model and beef sourcing, it is important

to understand how the farm-to-burrito process works.

Typically, young calves are born on “cow-calf” ranches, where female cows are

inseminated to produce one calf each year. According to the National Cattlemen’s Beef

Association, calves are raised on their mother’s milk for 8 months on these ranches, until they

are 500 pounds. Then, they are moved onto pastures where they forage and eat grass freely.

From there, adolescent cows are typically sold to a feedlot where they receive a grain-based diet

until their slaughter.

Unsurprisingly, most marketing materials produced by beef packing companies try to put

themselves in the best light. On the other end, animal rights organizations are known to

occasionally exaggerate. PETA has funded several undercover film projects inside American

slaughterhouses, displaying gruesome scenes of animal abuse. While there is truth behind these

videos, they are not always an accurate representation of the industry as a whole. The same

principle applies for beef processing companies; their websites contain some good information,

but they will unlikely share all the details of the feedlot and slaughterhouse process. In my

research, I have sought out accomplished authors and investigators who are neither

commissioned by animal rights organizations nor beef companies.

I have found the work of Michael Pollan to be a well-respected source of information

amongst the academic community. Pollan is an American author, journalist, and professor who is

known for his work on the industrialized food system. He has written dozens of essays, five

acclaimed books, and has been interviewed in several journals, news stories, and documentaries.

Most recently, he has produced his own series on Netflix, Cooked. In Pollan’s honest quest to

“learn how the industrial food chain transforms bushels of corn into steaks,” he decided to

purchase a young steer from a cow-calf operation in South Dakota, Blair Ranch, for $598

(Pollan, 2006, p. 66). Pollan notes that unlike pigs and chickens, who spend their entire lives

indoors, calves are still naturally born on a pasture. Though four out of five cattle raised on these

ranches ends up in one of the three giant meat packing companies, there are thousands of

privately owned cow-calf ranches.

Pollan tells us that his young steer was castrated and branded halfway through his 6

months on the cow-calf ranch (note, beef companies tend to report 8-10 months in their

marketing materials). After 6 months, Pollan’s steer was unwillingly weaned off of his mother

and placed in a “backgrounding pen.” These pens are the first time the young steers (the

technical term for castrated bulls) experience tight, fenced living. Pollan refers to them as “prep

school” for feedlots, where they are first accustomed to a corn diet out of a trough (Pollan, 2006,

p. 72). After two months in the backgrounding pen, Pollan followed his steer as he was tightly

packed into a large truck that transported him from South Dakota to Kansas, to a feedlot called

“Poky Feeders.” Poky Feeders is one of National Beef Packing Company’s commercial feedlots,

and holds roughly 37,000 steers. Every day, 1,000,000lbs of feed (corn, alfalfa, silage) pass

through the central mill. Pollan also describes tanks full of thousands of gallons of liquefied fat

(beef tallow, from slaughterhouses), protein supplements, liquid vitamins, synthetic estrogen,

and antibiotics. All of these ingredients are combined together and pushed through the 8 ½ miles

of trough (Pollan, 2006, p. 72).

Though feedlots range in size, around 95% of them have 1,000 or fewer steers housed.

The remaining 5% of feedlot operations make up 80% of total US cattle finished in feedlots, and

can have numbers as large as 37,000, as is the case with Poky Feeders (Beef USA, Feedlot

Finishing Cattle). As Pollan continues to tour Poky Feeders, where his steer now resides, he

describes the ‘manure lagoon’ that he came across. The lagoon is a mixture of water, manure,

and mud, and contains all the runoff from each pen. Once the pen is emptied and those 75-125

cows are taken to be killed and processed, the majority of their piled up manure is pushed, or

drained, to the lagoon. Though it may be more efficient to use this manure in other farming

operations, it contains too many chemicals from the cows’ diet of grains and antibiotics to be

effective, such as nitrogen, phosphorus, heavy metals, and hormone residues (Andersen, 2014).

Temple Grandin is a professor of Animal Science at Colorado State University, with a

master’s degree in animal behavior and doctoral degree in animal science. She is considered to

be the world’s leading expert on humane livestock handling and slaughter. According to

Grandin, not all feedlots are as horrible as the public makes them out to be. If they are managed

correctly, they can be successful. However, she does note significant, reoccurring problems in

large feedlots: the mud, the heat, the stress, and the poorly trained employees. Historically,

workers in the meat processing industry are not treated well. The national average salary for a

worker in this industry is only between $21,600 and $25,650, and the industry averages a 75%-

100% turnover rate of employees every year (Payscale.com & PBS.org, Schlosser). The difficult

job, the high turnover rate, and the lack of expertise and training lead to undercover videos of

horrendous animal abuse and mistreatment (McWilliams 2012).

Slaughtering

When the act of slaughtering is performed correctly, a cow’s death should be

instantaneous and painless, killed by a single blow to the brain with an electric, retractable bullet.

In 1996, when undercover videos of horrifying slaughterhouse scenes gained popularity,

McDonald’s Corporation hired animal expert Temple Grandin to perform and publish a highly

detailed audit of all of their beef and pork production. Grandin’s audit proved to be highly

necessary, as she found poor equipment, workers misfiring stun guns at cattle, and an excessive

use of electric prods to paralyze and harm cows. Grandin’s audit system has been adopted by

many other meat packing companies and restaurants (most notably, Wendy’s and McDonald’s),

and her suggested methods for calmly slaughtering cattle are used by roughly 54% of America’s

slaughterhouses (Grandin, National Institute of Animal Agriculture, 2001).

Though Grandin’s methods seem to be the most humane ways to handle and kill

livestock, there are still many slaughterhouses that do not follow her methods and suggestions.

There are several 3

party certifications that meat packing companies can obtain (Animal

Welfare Approved, Certified Humane, etc.), though legally slaughterhouses are only required to

follow USDA code and the Humane Slaughter Act. This act, which is still the standard after its

approval in 1958, states that bovines must be rendered “insensible to pain by a single blow or

gunshot or an electrical, chemical or other means that is rapid and effective, before being

shackled, hoisted, thrown, cast, or cut” (USDA.org). This act is enforced by the USDA Food

Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS).

Government Regulations of Feedlots

The USDA also enforces the Federal Meat Inspection Act of 1906, inspecting more than

6,200 establishments (the frequency of these inspections is not disclosed) (USDA.org, Food

Safety and Inspection Service). The Federal Meat Inspection Act emphasizes the “safety and

wholesomeness of meat… and ensures that it is accurately labeled” (USDA.org). During these

inspections, stockyards are examined, but not feedlots. The stockyards are the temporary (1-4

hours) holding place of the cattle before they are slaughtered; the USDA inspects these yards

primarily for diseased animals. In my research, I have not found any mandatory, government

related feedlot inspections for the health, happiness, and comfort of the cattle. Some companies,

suppliers, or large restaurants will require certain welfare standards from their suppliers, but

some specifications are more vague than others.

Essentially, this means if restaurants or suppliers would like meat to be above the bare

minimum in terms of quality of life, they must require the standards themselves. As previously

mentioned, there are programs that meat packing companies can apply for that will then give

them a welfare stamp of approval; these 3

party approval programs are similar to various fair

trade, ethical, and organic certifications for chocolate and coffee.

Grass-fed v. Corn-fed, Rumen

A cow is known as a ruminant, a term for animals who digest food with a rumen (goats,

sheep, deer, bison). Ruminants have a four-compartment stomach that have the unique ability to

digest grass and turn it into energy and protein; it is one of the most highly evolved digestive

systems on this earth (Grohman, 2010). The rumen is about the size of a medicine ball, and is

“essentially a twenty-gallon fermentation tank in which a resident population of bacteria dines on

grass” (Pollan, 2006, p.70). Though cows have evolved to live off of grass, most are only

allowed a grass diet for the first 6-8 months of their lives. Once cows are switched to a fattening

grain diet, complications arise.

The bloating and ulcering of a cow’s rumen, in addition to liver disease, are the most

common side effects of a corn diet. A cow’s rumen will ulcer when it cannot release gas due to a

layer of slime from digesting the corn. The rumen expands like a balloon and will push on the

vital organs within the cow, suffocating it if nothing is done. This condition is combatted with

heavy doses of antibiotics, though even on antibiotics cows would not be able to survive more

than a year on this diet (Salatin, 2011, p. 111).

Escherichia coli, or E. coli O 157, is a strand of bacteria that is common to the intestines

of a cow raised for beef. E. coli outbreaks had never arose until the 1980’s, but are now a

common news headline (including Chipotle). The bacteria can cause horrible sickness in any

human, and sometimes death. The Center for Disease control and Prevention has estimated that

every year, 2,000 Americans are hospitalized and 60 die as a result of E. coli O 157 (CDC.org, E.

coli). The bacteria strand is essentially nonexistent within 100% grass-fed cows; E. coli cannot

withstand the fermentation and pH environment within a grass-fed cow’s rumen. However, the

strand of bacteria has adapted to survive the highly acidic corn-fed rumen, living within the

cow’s feces and evolving to withstand the acid in our own stomachs (p. 82). According to Pollan,

“giving cows a grass diet would effectively shed 80% of E. coli in their [cows] guts within 5

days” (p. 82)

Grass fed v. Corn fed beef, Nutrition

A cow’s diet not only affects their health, but the humans who are eating it. Because most

cows in the US are raised on a grain-fed diet, we have become accustomed to the taste and the

“marbling” of the meat. Many partially grass-fed operations will finish cows on grain to achieve

the marbled taste, which alters the flavor and adds more fat (Lymbery, 2014, p. 162). Though

people are accustomed to the rich, fatty taste of grain-fed beef, there are several health benefits

of choosing grass-fed.

First off, grass-fed is leaner, containing 20%-30% less saturated fat and significantly

higher levels of Omega-3 fatty acids (Lymbery, 2014, p. 162). Research has shown that diets low

in Omega-3s have a higher risk of cancer, obesity, diabetes, etc. (this list goes on). The typical

Western diet is alarmingly low in Omega-3s; a healthy diet should have one to four more

Omega-6 than Omega-3 acids. However, the American diet on average contains 11 to 30 more

times Omega-6 than Omega-3 fatty acids (Daley, 2010). There is not enough research to pin

point the exact amount of Omega-3 fatty acids in grass-fed beef, but it can contain up to 10 times

more than its corn-fed counterpart (Robinson, 2004, p. 31). In addition to Omega-3 fatty acids,

animals with rumens (cows, sheep, bison), contain 2 to 5 times more “conjugated linoleic acid”

than grain-fed animals, which helps fight cancer and cardiovascular disease (Robinson, 2004, p.

32).

Grass-fed beef also contains a wide array of vitamins not found in grain-fed beef. All beef

has some levels of protein, iron, zinc, selenium, phosphorus, and B vitamins, but in grass-fed

beef, there is a much higher amount of vitamin E (up to 3 to 6 times more) which helps immunity

and lowers risk of heart disease (Robinson, 2004, p. 37). And finally, grass-fed beef has a higher

level of carotenoids, which is full of antioxidants and nutrients. Interestingly, the high level of

carotenoids in grass-fed beef is why the fat trimmings are often yellow (Daley, 2010).

Growth Hormones & Antibiotics in Cattle

The use of growth hormones in livestock cattle has been a common practice since the early

1900’s, when the demand for meat in the United States could not meet the supply. Added

hormones, such as estrogen, progesterone, and testosterone, are FDA approved and often used in

the food and water of beef cattle to promote growth (FDA.org). In addition to added hormones, it

is a common practice among ranchers to use “subtherapeutic antibiotics” in their cattle’s feed

and supplements. Subtherapeutic, or nontherapeutic, simply means a low dosage of antibiotics

used to increase growth, weight gain, and prevent future illness. In 2011, 13.6 million kilograms

of antibiotics were used on food-producing animals, which is estimated to account for 75-80% of

antibiotics sold in the United States (FDA, Dept. of Health & Human Services, 2012). Globally,

it is estimated that half of antibiotics sold are for livestock use (Schneider & Garrett, 2009).

Several studies conducted by the Department of Agriculture from 1999-2006 concluded that

over 80% of cattle, swine, and sheep farms administer nontherapeutic antibiotics (Schneider &

Garret, 2009). The corn rich diet, along with newly introduced growth hormones and antibiotics,

are the leading causes for beef cattle’s increasing growth rate. In the 50’s, cows were slaughtered

between the ages of 2 and 3 years, whereas now they are slaughtered between 14 and 16 months

(Pollan, 2006, p. 71). Common subtherapeutic antibiotics found in the cattle’s diet are Lasalocid,

Monensin, Laidlomycin, and Salinomycin, all of which promote growth and heavy weight gain

(Allen & Stanton, 2014).

The scientific community fears the rise in antibiotic resistance due to antibiotics in cattle’s

feed. According to an article written by Kammerle Schneider and Laurie Garrett, on behalf of the

Council on Foreign Relations,

Many of the antibiotics used on animals are identical or closely related to those used to

prevent infections among humans… Bacteria in animals (as in humans) are able to

develop antibiotic resistance when exposed to low doses of drugs over a long period of

time, contributing to the rise of pathogens that are able to defeat our shared antibiotic

arsenal. (Schneider & Garrett, 2009)

Antibiotic resistance in humans is transferred through beef production in three ways:

consuming meat, close contact, and environmental pollution. (Schneider & Garrett, 2009). As

concern for antibiotic resistance grows, so does the number of restaurants and companies

pledging to no longer use them. In December of 2014, Carl’s Jr. introduced their “All Natural”

burger, featuring beef raised without nontherapeutic antibiotics. In February of 2016, Subway

debuted its first antibiotic-free chicken sandwich at a premium price. There are other chains that

feature one or two antibiotic-free entrees, but Chipotle’s pledge to source entirely antibiotic-free

meat (chicken, pork, and beef) is considered rare in the industry.

Environmental Impact

Research shows that meat industry, specifically cattle used for beef, is the leading cause of

global warming and the depletion of natural resources. A 2009 study by the Worldwatch Institute

shows that livestock and their byproducts produce 32,000 million tons of carbon dioxide per

year, and “51% of all worldwide greenhouse gas emissions” (Hickman, 2009). In a book titled

Livestock’s Long Shadow, 65% of all ‘human-related’ emissions of Nitrous Oxide are due to

agriculture and livestock; Nitrous Oxide is a far more dangerous and impactful gas than Carbon

Dioxide, and can remain in the atmosphere for over 150 years (Steinfeld, 2006, p. 14).

In a critically acclaimed 2014 documentary titled Cowspiracy, produced by actor Leonardo

DiCaprio, researcher Kip Andersen searches for the truth behind the industrialization of beef and

its environmental impact. He finds that growing corn for livestock accounts for 56% of fresh

water usage in the US, and animal agriculture in total is responsible for 20%-33% of the world’s

fresh water (Andersen, Cowspiracy, 2014).

According to Andersen, grass-fed beef is just as detrimental to the environment, if not worse

than corn-fed. Grass-fed beef requires much more land for the cattle to graze on, as opposed to

confined feedlots. Additionally, grass-fed cattle live longer lives, therefore using more natural

resources and producing more waste. However, there is also evidence that shows grass-fed beef

to be much better for the environment. The industrialized beef system relies on farming large

amounts of corn to feed cows. As previously mentioned, 30% of America’s land is dedicated to

growing corn for agricultural feed (Kenner, Food Inc., 2007). If all the world’s land used to grow

cattle’s feed was centralized in one location, it would cover the half the United States (Lymbery,

2014, p. 203). On corn production for cattle, Lymbery writes, “A third of the world’s cereal

harvest is fed to farm animals. If it went directly to humans instead, it would feed about 3 billion

people” (p. 336).

Though grass-fed cows live longer lives, their diet is much less water intensive (grass does

not require the same irrigation as corn crops). Additionally, growing large crops of corn requires

large amounts of oil; allowing cows to graze naturally drastically reduces oil and water usage. In

the traditional rotational grazing system, cattle are herded onto a different length of pasture every

24-48 hours. This system allows the grass to have time to recover and grow back to its original

length. This constant shearing of the tallest blades of grass will expose them to the sunlight. By

not overgrazing and rotating frequently, the farm experiences a great level of biodiversity and

photosynthesis (Salatin, 2016, p. 36). The manure (free from antibiotics) and trampling of the

cows promotes the growth of the grass as they move on. If done correctly, this process would

“remove thousands of pounds of carbon from the atmosphere each year” in just one farm, and

would offset the fossil fuel emissions from the cattle. (Pollan, 2006, p.198).

This system is a much better use for cow’s manure than the current protocol; In the United

States, in 2014, 30.2 million cows were slaughtered for food, and it is estimated that a single cow

can produce 59lbs of manure a day (USDA.gov, 2014). Much of this manure is unusable by

farms as a natural growth enhancement considering the high levels of hormone and antibiotics

residues. As mentioned before, the manure is drained into a nearby lagoon, or buried off sight,

creating a significant amount of waste (Salatin, 2011, p. 125).

Though grass-fed beef is better for the environment in several ways, it is unlikely that the

same level of global beef production can rely entirely on this system. There is a reason large

companies have integrated corn diets and feedlots into beef production; it is cheaper and quicker.

However, each year the amount of 100% grass-fed beef operations slowly rise, and companies

like Chipotle are helping to increase their supply (Weiss, NY Times, 2013).

Part III: Chipotle Background

Chipotle Mexican Grill was founded by current CEO Steve Ells in 1993 in Denver,

Colorado. In 2008, Chipotle received its first major corporate investment from McDonald’s

Corporation, accumulating $50 million dollars. Though McDonald’s has been vital in Chipotle’s

growth of 500 restaurants between 1998 and 2005, Chipotle never changed their ingredients or

integrity: a quote by Steve Ells, “McDonald’s… seemed very interested in my passion about

creating this brand. I trusted them, and they did not really interfere with the brand” (Wong, 2015,

Bloomberg Magazine).

To this day, there are 35 Chipotles in the city of Denver alone, and over 1,800 in the US

(and 17 locations abroad). In 2006, Today, a single Chipotle restaurant can make upwards of

$10,000- $13,000 a day in revenue (Wong, 2015). As Chipotle was quickly expanding in the

early 2000’s, Ells began to put more emphasis on the quality of his ingredients. He visited one of

the chicken farms that supplied his restaurants, and found it “absolutely the most disgusting

thing” he had ever seen (Wong, 2015). Once Ells started visiting the farms and ranches that

raised Chipotle’s animals, he began the well-established relationship with Niman Ranch, an

ethical pork supplier. Around this time, Ells coined the phrase “Food with Integrity,” which is an

integral program to this day. Also around this time, McDonald’s became frustrated with

Chipotle’s stubbornness, high food costs, and refusal to take their restaurant advice. In 2006,

McDonald’s had a 90% stake in Chipotle Mexican Grill, and sold all of their shares by the end of

the year (Business Insider, Peterson, 2015).

With McDonald’s departure in 2006, Chipotle went public and sold their shares for $22

apiece. In the last 10 years, Chipotle’s performance in the stock market had been highly

successful, reaching 749

USD this last August.

Recently, Chipotle has

experienced food safety

and E. coli issues, and their

stock dropped to 413.12

USD in January of 2016 (Google Finance). These outbreaks are the cause of Chipotle’s first ever

reported loss of stockholder return in Q1 of 2016 (WSJ, Newman, 2016). Still, comparing

McDonald’s and Chipotle’s stock performance in the last 10 years, it is clear that Chipotle’s

1,800 locations have outperformed the burger chain in terms of growth.

Food with Integrity, Mission Statement

Chipotle’s mission statement is to “Change the way people think about and eat fast food,”

and has been since its development in the 90’s (Chipotle Annual Report 2014). Their mission

goes beyond their profits with the hope of changing the entire industry for better. Chipotle’s

mission statement is carried by their

“Food with Integrity” program,

which has made its way into their

online videos, advertisements, and

menus. Pictured is an example of

Chipotle’s menu board placed in all

of their locations. This program is

founded on, “purchasing fresh ingredients and preparing them by hand,” and “spending” time on

farms and in the field to understand where our food is from and how it is raised” (Chipotle

Annual Report, 2015). In all of their marketing and investor relations, Chipotle’s Food with

Integrity program is openly dedicated to ethical living conditions of animals, quality of

ingredients, environmentally friendly conditions, taste, and transparency with the public.

It is important to note the recent E. coli outbreaks at Chipotle, starting in November of

2015, and officially ended in February 2016. More than likely, it was from a crop of raw

vegetables that had been cross-contaminated with raw beef that contained the bacteria (cooking

the beef usually kills the E. coli virus). Though most E. coli outbreaks can be traced back to a

beef processing plant, Chipotle has not been able to trace the source of their outbreak. If the

source were known, this incident would perhaps be relevant to this project and Chipotle’s beef

sourcing. However, considering the lack of available information, this topic will not be covered.

Chipotle’s version of CSR, Stakeholder Framework

As mentioned earlier, In order to evaluate the success of Chipotle’s CSR and Stakeholder

Management approach in accordance with their beef sourcing, I will be using the three levels of

the Stakeholder Framework: value proposition of the organization, principles for stakeholder

cooperation, and respect for societal standards of conduct (Freeman et al., 2010, p. 78). But

before that can be done, Chipotle’s stakeholders need to be clarified. On Chipotle’s website,

under the Food with Integrity microsite, they write that their program is for “farmers, animals,

the environment, dentists, crane operators, ribbon dancers, magicians, cartographers, and you”

(Chipotle.com, Food with Integrity). Humorous in nature, this communicates some of Chipotle’s

primary stakeholders: the farmers, the animals, the environment, and the consumers. These are

the units who are affected by the Food with Integrity program, and these are the primary

stakeholders in Chipotle’s business. Additionally, Chipotle’s stockholders will always be

primary stakeholders.

The value proposition for Chipotle Mexican Grill is to “change the way people think

about and eat fast food.” Chipotle intends to do this primarily with the Food with Integrity

Program, which is also a part of its value proposition. The mission is not possible without the

principles for stakeholder cooperation; this is the second level that encompasses the decisions

and actions Chipotle makes in order to live up to its stakeholder goals. Additionally, Chipotle

must ensure their methods of beef sourcing adhere to societal standards of conduct and

expectations.

Below is an illustration I created to visually display Chipotle’s value proposition,

principles for stakeholder cooperation, and respect for societal standards. Beneath the principles

for stakeholder cooperation are the three categories I will be writing about as they relate to beef:

animal welfare, consumer health, and environmental impact. As stated in the preface, I will be

answering the following question: has Chipotle adequately and honestly incorporated CSR and

stakeholder value creation into the beef sourcing?

Part IV: Consumer Health

Intro/Stakeholders

As mentioned several times, Chipotle’s value proposition is to “change the way that people

think about and eat fast food” (Chipotle Annual report, 2016). One of the ways they intend to do

this is by sourcing and serving, “the very best ingredients we can find and preparing them by

hand” (Chipotle.com). Chipotle never explicitly says, “Our food is good for you,” most likely for

legal reasons. However, they do make it clear that they strive for high quality ingredients for

their customer that taste delicious.

In this section, the consumers eating the food are the primary stakeholder. In a sense,

Chipotle’s customers are their most important stakeholder; without their buying power, there

would be no business. This section will cover the quality and health benefits (or lack thereof) of

Chipotle’s beef sourcing, assessing whether or not they provide adequate stakeholder value to

their customers and shareholders.

Chipotle’s Standards

First, let us take a look at Chipotle’s own words regarding the quality and nutrition of their

beef. As mentioned above, Chipotle claims that they source the “very best ingredients” they can

find. On the Food with Integrity section of their website, they write,

We care deeply about where our ingredients come from. While industrial farming

practices have evolved to maximize profits and production, we make an extra effort to

partner with farmers, ranchers, and other suppliers whose practices emphasize quality and

responsibility.

In this paragraph, Chipotle implies they prefer a meat production system that emphasizes quality,

unlike the profit-maximizing industrializations. Further down on the Food with Integrity site,

Chipotle writes that they pursue long-term, personal relationships with their ranchers, some of

which have been supplying Chipotle for 15+ years. They also claim to send out their ingredient

buyers on the road frequently, surveying suppliers and performing audits.

GMOs

Chipotle advertises their refusal to use GMOs in their beef. GMOs are not commonly

found within beef itself, but are extremely common in the food that they eat. According to

Chipotle, a GMO is a “genetically modified organism,” that results from “inserting genes from

one species (typically bacteria or a virus) into the DNA of another” (Chipotle.com/gmo). As a

result, typically a plant has new characteristics that wouldn’t normally occur in nature. Corn (and

all of its modifications) is the number one GMOs grown in the United States; 93% of the corn

grown in the US in 2014 was genetically modified in some way. (Chipotle.com/gmo). Chipotle

does not use GMOs in their food (aside from their sodas) for three reasons: scientists are still

studying long term effects of GMOs, GMOs are more harmful to the environment, and their food

is more natural without it.

Below the section on GMOs, Chipotle addresses the genetically modified corn given to

beef. Though their meat products themselves are not genetically modified, their beef is “likely to

come from animals given at least some GMO feed,” but that “We are working hard on this

challenge” (Chipotle.com/gmo).

Antibiotics & Hormones

Chipotle also claims that their beef does not contain nontherapeutic antibiotics and

growth hormones. As the reader may recall from earlier in this report, over 80% of

conventionally raised beef receives some sort of subtherapeutic, or nontherapeutic, antibiotic in

their feed, and more than half the antibiotics sold in the US is for animal use (Schneider &

Garrett, 2009). There is evidence that these low dosages are contributing to antibiotic resistance

for humans, in addition to the concern that giving animals supplements and antibiotics to

increase growth rate is unnatural and unhealthy (Allen & Stanton, 2014).

Chipotle clearly states on their website that they do not allow the use of antibiotics or

synthetic growth hormones. If in the case an animal falls sick, Chipotle tells us the ranchers are

encouraged to use the appropriate antibiotics to bring it back to health. In their 2015 Annual

Report, Chipotle states that they endeavor to serve Responsibly Raised (their branded term to

mean raised without subtherapeutic antibiotics, growth hormones, and with high standards of

animal welfare), but they face challenges in supplying all their restaurants with meat of such high

standards. In the case of beef, if Chipotle cannot find a suitable supplier, they resort to

conventionally raised beef, “When we become aware that one or more of our restaurants will

serve conventionally raised meat, we clearly and specifically disclosure this temporary change

on signage in each affected restaurants” (Chipotle Annual Report, 2016). According to Chris

Arnold, the PR director at Chipotle, there is not enough supply to raise 100% of their beef

without subtherapeutic hormones, and only about 80% meets that standard (Weiss, NY Times,

2013).

Grass-Fed v. Corn-Fed

Then, there is the question of grass-fed v. corn-fed beef, which will be a reoccurring

concern for health, animal welfare, and environmental impact. As mentioned earlier, evidence

has shown that there are major health benefits to eating grass-fed beef over grain-fed. Grass-fed

beef has less fat, fewer calories, more Omega-3s, and a more balanced ratio between Omega-3s

and Omega-6s (Robinson, 2004, p. 31).

Chipotle claims on their website that some of their beef is 100% grass-fed, “We have

made substantial progress: for example, the 100% grass-fed beef served in many Chipotle

restaurants was not fed GMO grain- or any grain, for that matter” (Chipotle.com/gmo). As a

reminder, all cows start out on a grass-fed diet, and cattle who have spent their entire life eating

grass are considered “100% grass-fed.” Deeper into their website, Chipotle adds onto this

thought by saying their grass-fed beef is an important start, but sourcing exclusively grass-fed

and non-GMO beef would be a “long term project.” In a 2013 article written by Elizabeth Weiss

in the New York Times, Weiss interviews Chris Arnold, the PR director for Chipotle Mexican

Grill. In this interview he claims that Chipotle has been contemplating a stricter standard on

grass fed cattle, but today they accept that most cows need to be “feedlot-finished” (Weiss, 2013,

NY Times).

Though there is not detailed information on Chipotle’s website or Annual Reports about

Chipotle’s grass-fed beef sourcing, Chipotle CEO, Steve Ells, wrote an enlightening article on

Huffington Post in 2014. According to Ells, Chipotle has been wrestling with the introduction of

100% grass-feed beef into their supply chain. Ells himself writes, “There’s…evidence suggesting

that grass-fed beef is healthier for the people who eat it, and when managed properly, easier on

the environment” (Ells, 2014). He writes that Chipotle has experienced shortages in Responsibly

Raised beef, and has been periodically serving conventionally raised beef over the last several

years. Ells saw this as an opportunity to expand their supply chain, and to begin sourcing grass-

fed beef from Southern Australia. According to Ells, Australia is years ahead of the US, and “the

meat produced by these ranches is “grass-fed” in the truest sense of the term: The cattle spend

their entire lives grazing on pastures…eating only grass” (Ells, 2014). Ells writes that over time,

he hopes to see the demand and supply for 100% grass-fed beef to increase in the US, and for

their sourcing from Australia to encourage just that, “The transition toward grass-fed beef won’t

happen overnight. But we need to start somewhere, and years of research by our purchasing team

suggests that Australia is the best place to start sourcing grass-fed beef at the scale” (Ells, 2014).

In an interview with Chris Arnold, PR Director of Chipotle, and AgriTalk radio host

Mike Adams, Arnold says that about 25% of their beef is imported from Australia (Arnold, 2014,

AgriTalk). Arnold and Ells have both mentioned Chipotle has a few 100% grass-fed suppliers in

the US (less than 5% of their total supply); therefore, it can be estimated that 25%-30% of

Chipotle’s beef is 100% grass-fed, which is by far the largest supply of true grass-fed beef in any

fast food chain.

It is encouraging to read that the company’s CEO understands the health and

environmental benefits of grass-fed beef, in addition to the natural function of the cow’s rumen.

In this article, Ells mentioned one of their current 100% grass-fed beef suppliers, Missouri’s Rain

Crow Ranch. From their website, Rain Crow appears to care deeply about animal welfare and the

environment, and allows the cattle to eat grass from start to finish.

Suppliers Continued

Though Ells disclosed Rain Crow Ranch in his article, corporate Chipotle does not make

it easy to find research on the rest of their beef suppliers. However, in addition to the

aforementioned Rain Crow Ranch, I have found one more of Chipotle’s current beef suppliers. In

the NY Times article written by Elizabeth Weiss, she mentioned she spoke with the marketing

director of Meyer Natural Foods, who claims they sell their Natural Angus beef to Chipotle

(Weiss, 2013, NY Times). I emailed Meyer Natural Foods to request more information, and

received a response from Scott Coakley, the Sr. VP of Cattle Procurement. According to

Coakley, Meyer Natural Angus is one of Chipotle’s “largest beef suppliers,” but he did not

specific the specific amount they supply.

On their website, Meyer Natural Angus claims their cows are finished on a corn diet, but

are not given any growth hormones or subtherapeutic antibiotics (MeyerNaturalAngus.com).

Additionally, Meyer has a fairly detailed PDF available about their “Humanely Handled

Program,” that gives more information on cattle handling, transportation, slaughterhouse

facilities, etc. The standards are clearly higher at Meyer than a typical cattle operation, which is

good news for Chipotle’s claims. In my email conversation with Scott Coakley, he told me at

Meyer Natural Foods the cattle are raised on grass with their mother for approximately 6 months.

After this time, cattle are either kept on grass for a period of time, or start their diet of grain;

Coakley described this diet as “grain, hay, silage, distillers, vitamins, and minerals.” At Meyer,

cattle are on this diet for at least 180 days (6 months), or 240 days (8 months). Coakley explained

the grain diet will add intermuscular fat, or “marbling,” which “gives it the taste profile that

people are looking for.”

Though Meyer Natural Angus is a highly humane operation that does not use hormones

or antibiotics, their cattle are fed the same diet you might find at any feedlot operation in the

United States. Meyer Natural Foods is only one small example of Chipotle’s suppliers, but this

information, along with Ell’s interview, Arnold’s interview, Chipotle’s online marketing, and the

Annual Report together paint a picture of the beef sourced by Chipotle: 25% -30% grass-fed and

antibiotic-free cattle from Australia, roughly 1-5% grass-fed and antibiotic free from the US, and

the remaining 70% as grain-finished and antibiotic-free in the US (ideally). Chipotle has had to

source conventionally raised beef when there is a shortage of Responsibly Raised beef; Chris

Arnold has told Adams that about 15-20% of their beef was conventionally raised between 2013

and 2014 (on corn, lower welfare standards, use of antibiotics). However, since Chipotle started

sourcing grass-fed beef from Australia in the summer of 2014, there are no statistics on the

current percentage of conventionally raised beef.

Tradeoffs

Chipotle’s decisions concerning the health and nutrition of their beef come with several

tradeoffs. First, eliminating GMOs from their menu does not pose any important tradeoffs

concerning beef; however, there is a tradeoff being made by not eliminating GMOs from their

cattle’s food. The GMO’s in most cattle’s food comes from genetically modified corn, which has

a negative impact on the consumer’s diet. By allowing most of their cattle to eat grain at any

point in their lives (around 75%), Chipotle sacrifices the health benefits of grass-fed beef on a

natural, GMO-free diet. On the positive side, cattle that are grain-finished are often cheaper,

grow quicker, are larger in supply, have a familiar taste, and still provide some health benefits. In

this tradeoff, Chipotle has decided their need for expansion, growth, and a profitable company

has outweighed the benefit of 100% grass-fed beef in all their restaurants. Ells admitted that he

would like to see more grass-fed beef in the restaurants, but that “most of the U.S. grass-fed beef

that meets our standards is simply not produced in sufficient quantities to meet our demand”

(Ells, 2014). Chipotle’s customers would experience a more natural and nutritious steak burrito if

Chipotle only served grass-fed beef. However, Chipotle would not be the size it is today if it had

only purchased grass-fed beef, and they would not possess the same amount of purchasing power

and influence in the industry as they do now.

The second tradeoff in the category is the use of subtherapeutic antibiotics and growth

hormones. From the research I gathered, it appears that Chipotle remains firm on their refusal to

use antibiotics and hormones in their meat (other than the conventionally raised beef that is used

when supplies are short). Not using growth enhancements is more expensive, considering the

cattle take longer to mature. Additionally, more ranches currently use subtherapeutic hormones

(roughly 80% in the US), making Chipotle’s sourcing, and potentially the rancher’s customs,

more difficult (Schneider & Garret, 2009). However, refusing to use growth supplements in

cattle helps the rising problem of antibiotics resistance and is more natural, allowing the cow to

grow at its own pace. Additionally, Chipotle’s refusal to use subtherapeutic antibiotics helps

their PR (Chipotle does not hesitate to advertise this fact). In this tradeoff, Chipotle has decided

that the use of antibiotics and growth hormones in their beef does not outweigh the benefits of

naturally raised beef.

Section Conclusion

Chipotle’s original value proposition is to change the way that people think about and eat

fast food, and in this category, they attempt to do so primarily by not using antibiotics growth

hormones in their cattle’s feed. Chipotle is one of the first major fast food chains to attempt to

not use antibiotics in any of their meat products, and it is an important step toward consumer

health, better farming practices, and their value proposition.

The argument can be made that if Chipotle’s customers were their number one priority

and stakeholder, they would only be serving 100% grass-fed and Responsibly Raised beef, no

exceptions. From 2013 to this day, Chipotle has resorted to serving conventionally raised beef to

fill shortages in their supply, which is not a part of their Food with Integrity commitment.

However, Chipotle’s customers are not their only stakeholder. First and foremost, Chipotle is a

business that has stockholders and is publically traded. If Chipotle had decided to only source

antibiotic free and 100% grass-fed beef, they would not have over 1,800 stores and a stock price

of $750 last October. Sourcing 100% grass-fed beef would also inevitably raise the price of their

products, making it difficult for Chipotle to follow through with the 3

level of the Stakeholder

Framework of complying with social expectations.

While a legitimate criticism could be advanced that Chipotle should restrain its growth

rate for the sake of its value proposition, Chipotle now has the opportunity to make significant

changes in the industry. Additionally, the larger Chipotle’s customer base, the greater awareness

Chipotle can bring to the changes that need to be made in the industrial beef system. Chris

Arnold mentioned in an interview that Chipotle is constantly helping their suppliers expand and

produce more Responsibly Raised meat, and Ells hopes their business model will encourage

more suppliers to raise grass-fed, hormone-free, and ethical meat. In the category of consumer

health, it appears that Chipotle has provided adequate stakeholder value to its consumers and its

stockholders. Additionally, Chipotle’s antibiotic-free and hormone-free beef goes above and

beyond cultural expectations, satisfying the 3

level of the Stakeholder Framework.

Part V: Animal Welfare

Intro/Stakeholders

When dealing with a business that serves meat, animal welfare is an important part of

corporate social responsibility. As slaughterhouse and feedlot conditions have become more

publicized and reformed in the last few decades, some fast food restaurants have chosen to

publicly disclose information to reassure their customers that their animals have been treated

ethically. Fast food giants McDonald’s, Burger King, and Wendy’s all have “Animal Welfare

Programs” with varying degrees of information and promises. Chipotle is no exception, and in

many ways has claimed to be a pioneer in the animal welfare movement (Chipotle Annual

Report, 2014, p. 20). For this section, the stakeholders will be the cows, the ranchers/suppliers,

and the stockholders.

Chipotle’s Standards

As stated before, Chipotle’s mission statement and value proposition is to “change the way

that people think about fast food,” in addition to their Food with Integrity promise

(Chipotle.com). In this case, they promise to fulfill their value proposition by serving beef that

has been raised ethically. Chipotle discusses and advertises the treatment of their animals on

several pages of their website, their annual report, their marketing materials, and even on

employee t-shirts.

On the home page of Chipotle’s

website, it states “We think that

animals raised outdoors or in deeply-

bedded pens are happier and healthier

than those raised in confinement”

(Chipotle.com). They continue to say

that they stand firmly on two things:

the space given to the animals, and the health of the livestock. Above is a screen shot from

Chipotle.com detailing their space requirements for their animals. Accordingly, Chipotle claims

to set minimum space requirements for their meat and dairy animals, and works with their

suppliers to set “the highest possible animal welfare standards” (Chipotle.com). As mentioned

previously, Chipotle states that if there are supply shortages of their Responsibly Raised (raised

without antibiotics, growth hormones, and with high animal welfare standards) meat, they will

instead serve conventionally raised beef and post signs in the affected restaurants.

Suppliers

On Chipotle’s “Become a Supplier,” site, beef suppliers have basic requirements they

must follow before they can apply: 1. No subtherapeutic antibiotics, 2. No growth hormones, 3.

100% vegetarian feed, and 4. Humane handling. On this form, Chipotle would also like to know

if the animals are grass-fed (but it is not a requirement). Additionally, suppliers are required to

follow the Food with Integrity guidelines, be registered and inspected by the FDA, the USDA,

and a 3rd party food safety program, comply with frequent visits and audits by Chipotle team

members, and have a willingness to improve practices every year. As mentioned earlier, two of

the known beef suppliers for Chipotle are Rain Crow Ranch and Meyer Natural Angus. Rain

Crow is a 100% grass-fed ranch, and has extremely high animal welfare standards and several 3

party certifications.

Meyer Natural Angus is one of Chipotle’s largest beef suppliers, with over 43,000 acres

used for cattle operations in Western Montana (Scott Coakley, 2016, email interview). Meyer

Natural Angus is not a grass-fed operation, but is certified “humane” from the Humane Farm

Animal Care Organization, which is one of the largest and most well recognized 3

party

certifications for animal welfare practices (Certified Humane). Certified Humane has highly

detailed standards for beef cattle treatment, from the time they are born to the time they are

killed. In addition, Meyer Natural Angus also has its own “Humanely Handled Program” which

specifies requirements such as cattle handling procedures and rest requirements for travel. It is

clear that Meyer Natural Angus’ stated welfare standards live up to Chipotle’s Food with

Integrity program. Though Meyer is only one example of Chipotle’s beef suppliers, in the 2016

Annual Report, they write that they purchase their beef from a small number of suppliers with

whom they develop long term relationships. Here, it is not clear if the word “small” means

dozens or hundreds.

No Specific Guidelines

Though one of Chipotle’s largest beef suppliers has high standards of animal welfare,

Chipotle does not make that information public. I was able to find this out by contacting Meyer

Natural Angus directly, but no one from Corporate Chipotle has answered my emails. When it

comes to Chipotle’s welfare standards for their beef cows, there are no specific guidelines listed

anywhere. As Journalist Elizabeth Weiss puts it in her article about Chipotle’s marketing,

It would be nice, of course, if some entity other than Chipotle itself—an independent

auditor, for example—could confirm all this. The United States doesn’t have

comprehensive, consistent regulations regarding the use of terms like “natural” and

“humane.”… Because Chipotle defines its own standards, its customers have to trust

Chipotle to self-police. (Weiss, 2014, NY Times).

In Chipotle’s 2015 Annual Report, they cite the example of Niman Ranch. In a routine audit of

their main pork supplier, Chipotle found that Niman Ranch was not meeting their standards of

animal welfare, and the pigs were not given deeply bedded barns and outdoor access. As a result,

Chipotle stopped supplying pork to many of their restaurants between 2014 and 2015 until

Niman Ranch was able to correct their protocol. In this example, Chipotle was entirely

transparent with the public, and even risked taking a loss to ensure their pork was sourced from

an ethical source. According to Chris Arnold, “We would rather not serve pork at all, than serve

pork from animals that are raised in this way” (Business Insider, 2015, Peterson). Chipotle is also

transparent when it comes to the dairy cows, writing that all must have access to pastures to

graze. However, when it comes to the cattle used for beef, there are no specific guidelines nor

certifications given.

Industry Benchmarks

At surface level, it may see that Chipotle provides a significant amount of information on

their cattle treatment; it is most likely enough information to please the average customer,

satisfying the 3

level of the Stakeholder Framework on that front. However, Chipotle is actually

lacking a significant amount of public information compared to their competitors. Jack in the

Box lists all their beef suppliers, in addition to what 3

party certifications their suppliers must

obtain (Animal Welfare at Jack in the Box, 2015). Wendy’s Animal Welfare Program details

their supplier audit procedures (and how many they perform in a year), the transportation

guidelines for cattle, and the holding and handling protocol (Wendys.com, Animal Welfare). In

1999, McDonald’s hired world-renowned animal science expert, Temple Grandin, to perform a

highly detailed audit of McDonald’s beef processing plants. According to Grandin, McDonald’s

pioneered the animal welfare audit process for the fast food industry, and still uses the system

annually to improve (Grandin.com, 2001). In 2014, McDonald’s sponsored and published a

benchmarking survey to “asses the health and welfare of beef and dairy cows at the time of

slaughter (McDonalds.com, Advancing Farm Animal Welfare).

Chipotle is much smaller than Wendy’s, Jack in the Box, and McDonald’s, and may not

have as many resources. However, the fact remains: Chipotle claims to have the highest animal

welfare standards possible, yet gives no additional information other than the deeply-bedded

pens for their pigs and pastures for their dairy cows. As mentioned before in the industry

background, there are dozens of ways cattle can be abused in the industrialized beef system,

including stress and heat in feedlots, manure control, poorly trained handlers, overcrowding,

electric prods, misfiring of captive bolt guns, etc. If Chipotle truly is an industry leader in this

area, as Meyer Natural Angus may suggest, they should consider disclosing more information so

customers have more than just their word to rely on.

Grass-Fed. v. Corn-Fed

A cow’s diet has a significant effect on its overall health, comfort, and wellbeing. 100%

grass-fed cows are given more space and more freedom to live their lives as they normally

would. In order for cows to live on a fresh grass diet (not hay), they must be allowed to graze on

open fields. This requires much more space than a conventional feedlot, especially if the rancher

practices rotational grazing (rotating cattle to difference pastures every 24-48 hours to give the

grass time to re-grow). As mentioned earlier, Chipotle started importing 100% grass-fed beef

from Australia in 2014; in total, roughly 25% of its total beef is imported grass-fed from

Australia, and 1-5% is US grass-fed beef. Chipotle’s largest US grass-fed supplier, Rain Crow

Ranch, has more than 10,000 acres of grassland for their cattle to roam on (Charles, 2013,

NPR.org). Around 70% of beef in Australia is grass-fed, on account for the abundance of grassy

pastures and cultural norm. Knowing this, about one fourth of Chipotle’s beef cattle spent their

lives grazing and roaming on pastures, a number that is likely higher than any other fast food

chain can give. The alternative to grazing, is of course, the feedlot. Feedlot pens range greatly in

size and amount of cattle, and steers can be allowed anywhere from 30 square feet each, to 250

square feet. The more tightly packed they are, the more money can be made.

Feeding cows grass not only allows them more space to roam, but also keeps them

healthy and comfortable. As mentioned in the first section of this paper, cows are ruminants with

a complex, four-compartment stomach. When cows are fed corn, their natural process of

digestion is interrupted (FDA.gov, 2014). This can result in uncomfortable bloating, ulcering,

and sometimes death if not treated (Pollan, 2006, p. 72). Often the cattle’s diet is not the focus of

animal welfare, but it is just as important of an issue as correct cattle handling. The fact that

Chipotle sources one fourth of their beef from grass-fed ranches is an important step toward

better living conditions, but also shows significant room for improvement.

Tradeoffs

In Chipotle’s quest for Food with Integrity, they have made Corporate Social

Responsibility tradeoffs concerning the welfare of their beef cattle. First, ethically raised meat is

more expensive than its conventionally raised counterpart, in almost every scenario. Though

there are no specific figures on how much more expensive Chipotle’s Responsibly Raised beef is

compared to conventionally raised, interviews with Steve Ells and Chris Arnold both confirm

that the extra cost is significant. To Ells, animals raised with higher welfare standards and

without antibiotics is worth the extra cost, and sourcing Responsibly Raised meat is always

Chipotle’s priority.

Second, Chipotle experiences tradeoffs in their growing quest for grass-fed beef. About

25% of Chipotle’s beef is grass-fed, and Ells would like to see more in the future (Ells, 2014,

Huffington Post). US Grass-fed beef makes up less than 1% of total US supply, and is much

more expensive than Responsibly Raised and conventional beef. The Australian grass-fed beef

that Chipotle sources is more expensive than conventional beef, but runs around the same price

as US Responsibly Raised beef (Arnold, 2014, AgriTalk Interview). By sourcing beef from

Australia, they gain a larger supply of humane, 100% grass-fed beef, but runs the risk of

increased environmental damage (or at least negative media) and angered US ranchers.

Alternatively, by sourcing 75% corn-fed beef, Chipotle saves money and is able to supply its

2,000 restaurants, but in many ways sacrifices their cattle’s quality of life by doing so.

Section Conclusion

If everything Chipotle has written on their website and Annual Report is true, then

customers should feel affirmed the steak in their burrito was treated well. However, Chipotle

does not supply enough information for any consumer to be truly certain of their beef’s quality of

life. In my research, I was able to determine one of Chipotle’s largest beef suppliers, and was

pleased with Meyer Natural Angus’ stated principles of animal welfare. However, the average

consumer does not have access to this information, and compared to its competitors, Chipotle has

significantly less public information. As a part their Food with Integrity program and value

proposition to “Change the way that people think about fast food,” Chipotle promises to have the

“highest possible animal welfare standards” (Chipotle.com). This may be true, and the available

evidence seems to agree, but there is no way to know with 100% certainty. Perhaps for Chipotle

to really change the way people think about fast food, they might consider to increasing their

level of transparency when it comes to welfare standards of cattle raised for beef. However,

Chipotle’s transparency is perhaps enough to meet the 3

level of the Stakeholder Framework,

satisfying cultural and legal expectations. The average consumer does not research Chipotle

looking for animal welfare standards like I have, and Chipotle has followed the minimum

welfare standards mandated by law.

Though Chipotle claims to enforce high animal welfare standards, the fact remains that

only 25-30% of their beef is grass-fed. Increasing this percentage would increase the amount of

cattle that experience the highest quality of life possible. If Chipotle’s primary stakeholder was

their cattle, then they would most likely source exclusively from expensive grass-fed operations.

However, in true Stakeholder Management, not all stakeholder interest is equally weighted.

Rather, it is the careful balance and integration of all stakeholder needs in the long term; in the

case of animal welfare, it appears that Chipotle has accomplished this, living up to their value

proposition and providing adequate stakeholder value to their stockholders, animals, and

consumers. However, I believe Chipotle still owes it to their customers and investors to disclose

more detailed information on their animal welfare standards and protocols.

Part VI: Environmental Impact

Intro/Stakeholders

The final (and arguably most important) category in this report is the environmental

impact of Chipotle’s beef sourcing. The most relevant stakeholder in this instance is the

environment itself, which is relevant for customers, animals, ranchers, and everyone else. The

public eye has been paying closer attention to climate change and our impact on the environment

in the last decade, though unfortunately, the vast majority of people still do not realize the

negative impact that feedlots and industrialized beef have on our earth.

As mentioned earlier, livestock and their byproducts produce roughly 51% of all

greenhouse gas emissions in the world, and 65% of all human-related emissions of Nitrous

Oxide (Hickman, 2009 & Steinfeld, 2006, p. 14). Animal Agriculture has destroyed up to 91% of

the Amazon Rainforest when accounting for feedlot operations and crops grown for animal feed

(Sergio, 2003, p. 5). Livestock covers 45% of the earth total landmass, and one third of the

world’s fresh water is used for animal agriculture (Thornton, Herrero, Ericksen, 2011, p. 1).

These are just a few figures; there are hundreds more about how animal agriculture, specifically

cows, are taking a massive toll on the environment and its resources.

Unlike several large competitors (Wendy’s, Taco Bell, McDonald’s), Chipotle does not

publish a sustainability report. Though it is not required, these reports give detailed insight into

the ways in which a food company offsets their carbon footprint. However, Chipotle claims that

they make the environment a priority as a part of their Food with Integrity Program, “Every

choice we make- about who we work with, what we serve, and what we stand for- affect the

bigger picture: the health of the planet” (Chipotle.com). In their marketing, Chipotle focuses on

local produce sourcing, reduced pesticides, and antibiotic-free meat. In addition, Chipotle has

been publishing articles in their website as a part of their “Sustainability Series,” with topic so

far on recycling, compost, energy, and packaging.

Antibiotics

Most concern about antibiotic use in raising livestock is about increased antibiotic

resistance. However, there is also evidence to suggest that overuse of livestock antibiotics harms

the environment. In the cow’s feces, it is always possible that a portion of the drug administered

remains live and active. The antibiotic residue, along with growth hormones and harmful

bacteria, can often reach a nearby water system through drainage and runoff. Increased hormones

and antibiotics can have a negative effect on delicate ecosystems, especially aquatic life

(Michigan State University, 2011). Regardless of manure pollution of ecosystems, manure from

feedlots that use subtherapeutic antibiotics and growth hormones cannot be used as fertilizer.

One of Chipotle’s most important goals in meat sourcing is to find suppliers that use no

subtherapeutic antibiotics or growth hormones, which in this case can reduce harmful pollution

and unnecessary waste.

Grass-fed v. Corn-fed

Unsurprisingly, the distinction between grass-fed and corn-fed beef returns as a crucial

element of environmental stewardship. As mentioned earlier, there is an ongoing debate about

which way of feeding cattle is better for the environment. Many researchers have pointed out that

natural grass-fed beef uses more resources. However, there is more compelling research that

shows a shift towards eating less meat, but grass-fed beef, is the best environmental decision (or

eating no beef at all). (Lymberry, 2014, p. 247).

In an article Steve Ells wrote for Huffington Post, he claims that as a corporation,

Chipotle sees the benefit of grass-fed beef over grain-fed on the environment. Ells writes that he

hopes to see more grass-fed beef on the Chipotle menu in the future, in addition to a larger

supply in the states. As mentioned earlier, Chipotle currently sources roughly 25% of its beef

from Australia, 100% grass-fed. Additionally, they source a very small amount of 100% grass-

fed beef domestically (Arnold, 2014, AgriTalk). Unsurprisingly, Chipotle has received negative

feedback for this decision, primarily for environmental concerns. Consistently shipping literal

tons of beef across the ocean uses a tremendous amount of oil and energy. Many local grass-fed

ranchers have brought up the question, did Chipotle exhaust its resources in the states?

Chris Arnold, PR director of Chipotle, tells us that Chipotle did not, “given the price

premium for grass-fed beef in the United States, using US grass-fed beef is not as feasible of an

option as using imported grass-fed beef” (Arnold, 2014, AgriTalk). Arnold is correct; grass-fed

beef is significantly cheaper in Australia than it is in the states. Not only does the Australian beef

go above and beyond Chipotle’s

Food with Integrity Standards, it

is also the same price (if not

cheaper), than Responsibly

Raised beef in the US. According

to Arnold, Chipotle believes their

carbon footprint of shipping the

Australian beef is completely offset by the grass-fed diet, which may be true.

According to an academic journal published by Christopher Weber and Scott Matthews,

professors at Carnegie Mellon, “food-miles” are a relatively small contributor to the greenhouse

gases of our red meat. Food-miles refer to the amount of distance our food must travel to reach

our plates; in general, environmentally conscious consumers would consider local food to be

better for the environment. While local food travels less miles, Weber’s and Matthews’ research

shows that in regards to food consumption, 83% of the average US household’s carbon footprint

is due to food production, and not transportation of our food. On the other hand, transportation

and delivery only accounts for 15% of the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions (Weber &

Matthews, 2008). Above is a chart from this journal, showing the larger impact the production of

meat has on the climate as opposed to delivery and freight. In the conclusion of this study,

Weber and Matthews urge consumers to pay close attention to the production methods of their

food and not just the food miles. Though Weber and Matthews do not mention the difference in

climate impact between grass-fed and corn-fed beef, their research would technically support

Chipotle’s grass-fed cows from Australia.

At the end of the Chris Arnold’s interview with AgriTalk, he adds that he doesn’t

believe the US supply of 100% grass-fed beef is great enough to fill the gap of conventionally

raised beef that Chipotle was using. He explains that true grass-fed operations in the states are

small, and making contracts with them is often complicated because Chipotle only uses 23% of

the cow (requiring the beef processor to find other companies who will buy the remaining 77%).

The fact remains: sourcing grass-fed beef from Australia is cheaper than the United Sates, and

there are many 100% grass-fed operations in the US who are displeased that Chipotle never

approached them. In an article written in Beef Magazine in 2014, Texas Agriculture

Commissioner Todd Staples writes, “We have a wide variety of producers and processors. It

seems foolish to discount these immense, local resources when making decisions about where to

source your beef” (Radke, 2014).

Tradeoffs

By not using subtherapeutic antibiotics and growth hormones in cow’s feed, Chipotle’s

cows mature slower, requiring more money, feed, and producing more waste. However, with this

decision, Chipotle is benefiting the environment in several other ways. One, they are reducing

the amount of toxic, unusable manure. Two, they are reducing the amount of toxic runoffs that

wreak havoc in aquatic ecosystems. Someone could argue either way, but it seems in this case

that Chipotle’s decision to not use antibiotics results in the least amount of tradeoffs, and is in

line with their value proposition.

In the case of grass-fed beef, the tradeoffs become more complicated. First of all,

Chipotle’s grass-fed supply is only 25%, and it could technically be much more. By sustaining

this number, they are saving money and keeping domestic suppliers pleased. However, they are

forfeiting the benefits grass-fed beef has for the environment. In the case of importing beef from

Australia, Chipotle is increasing their grass-fed and Responsibly Raised supply, reducing their

amount of conventionally raised beef, and saving money. However, they are increasing their

negative PR in many suppliers’ eyes, as well as shipping beef across the world when there is still

untapped grass-fed resources in the US. In this case, Chipotle has made the decision that the

benefits of using grass-fed Australian beef outweigh the negatives. Additionally, they have also

made the decision that the financial benefits of only sourcing 25% grass-fed cows outweigh the

negative environmental impact.

Section Conclusion

Steve Ells clearly put a lot of thought into his company’s decision to source beef from

Australia. He knew the move would please some, and upset many others. Looking back at their

value proposition, their goal is to change the way that people think about fast food, and serve

Food with Integrity. According to Chipotle, Food with Integrity is raised with animal welfare,

nutrition, and the environment all in mind. In the case of environmental impact, Chipotle could

be doing more. If the environment was their primary stakeholder, then they have not done their

full part. While the most sustainable option would be to not serve beef at all, Chipotle’s business

model would likely not be able to continue with a vegetarian menu.

However, Chipotle could be sourcing much more grass-fed beef. Chris Arnold told us in

his interview that Chipotle has yet to look into many grass-fed operations in the states because

the meat is highly expensive. Could Chipotle technically and feasibly afford all the 100% grass-

fed resources in the United States? More than likely. Would this be better for the environment?

More than likely.

However, the environment is not Chipotle’s only stakeholder. They must also think

about their shareholders and their customers. Sourcing from every possible grass-fed operation in

the US would be significantly more expensive, causing Chipotle to either gain less profit, or

increase their prices. Increasing their prices could discourage customers from returning, causing

a chain reaction that would be hard to recover from; customers’ expectations are apart of the 3

level of the Stakeholder Framework, and significantly raising the price higher than the societal

norm for fast food would hurt the company. Chipotle reporting less profit would not provide

value to their shareholders, and would decrease their stock price and growth. Additionally,

sufficient profit margins are necessary to pay employees well.

Chipotle’s decision to source beef from Australia has significant tradeoffs, but it seems

to provide the most stakeholder value simultaneously for their shareholders, customers, animals,

and even ranchers in the long term. In the future, Ells hopes they will encourage more US

suppliers to produce grass-fed beef, which would then give Chipotle more options to source

domestically, “We’re optimistic that our decision to serve grass-fed beef from Australia is one

small step in the larger journey of restoring the practice of raising great American beef entirely

on grass” (Ells, 2014, Huffington Post).

Part VII: Conclusion

In this project, I first defined Corporate Social Responsibility in conjunction with

Stakeholder Management: a model that full integrates all relevant stakeholders and value into

business decisions, though not necessarily equally weighted. I then defined the three levels of the

Stakeholder Framework in relation to Chipotle: the value proposition, the principles for

stakeholder cooperation, and respecting societal standards of conduct. Chipotle’s value

proposition is to “Change the way that people think about and eat fast food,” and the promise to

serve “Food with Integrity.” I explained that Stakeholder Management involves tradeoffs when

making business decisions, and the ideal tradeoffs still provide value to all stakeholders in some

capacity. I then presented my research question, has Chipotle adequately and honestly

incorporated CSR and stakeholder value creation into their beef sourcing? After I provided a

background of the beef processing industry and Chipotle’s beginnings, I wrote about Chipotle’s

beef sourcing as it relates to three important categories: health, animal welfare, and

environmental impact.

When researching the health and nutrition of beef, I found that Chipotle made the

tradeoff of serving 75% corn-fed beef, consequently depriving their customers of the health

benefits of grass-fed beef. Additionally, I found that Chipotle made the tradeoff of only sourcing

antibiotic and hormone-free beef, even though doing so is more expensive and has limited

sourcing options. In these tradeoffs, Chipotle adequately balanced stakeholder value between

customer and stockholder, providing customers with antibiotic-free meat (and some grass-fed),

while also providing stockholder value by saving cost.

When researching Chipotle’s animal welfare standards, I found a significant amount of

missing information concerning the treatment of their cattle. Chipotle claims to provide the

highest possible welfare standards, but does not specify what those standards are. However, their

largest known beef supplier does exhibit superior animal welfare standards, and their CEO has a

history of sacrificing profit for animal welfare concerns.

Though Chipotle claims to have high welfare standards, only 25% of their beef is

currently 100% grass-fed. Feeding cattle grass greatly improves their living situation and overall

comfort; by allowing such a large amount of their cows to be grain-fed or grain-finished,

Chipotle sacrifices the health and welfare of the cattle in some capacity. However, sourcing

exclusively 100% grass-fed cows would be extremely expensive at the market’s current rate, and

would decrease stockholder value. If prices were raised, this would also decrease customer value.

Chipotle’s decision to source 25% grass-fed beef, in addition to the already high welfare

standards they require, provides and adequate amount of value to all stakeholders involved. That

being said, Chipotle owes it to their investors and customers to increase their transparency, and

disclose more of their specific welfare standards.

Finally, I showed the environmental impact of Chipotle’s beef sourcing decisions.

Chipotle chooses to source only antibiotic-free and hormone-free beef (if supply allows), which

has less of an impact on the environment. The tradeoff in this case is the additional cost and

difficulty of finding suppliers. However, the value of Chipotle’s antibiotic-free meat on the

environment outweighs the additional cost, and still provides value to stockholders with the

positive PR this brings Chipotle.

In the case of Australian imported beef, Chipotle has made the tradeoff of affordable,

100% grass-fed and antibiotic-free beef for the environmental cost of shipping the beef across

the ocean. This decision angered many ranchers and customers who were frustrated with

Chipotle’s lack of local sourcing. However, doing so would have greatly decreased their

stockholder value. Chris Arnold explained that 100% grass-fed beef makes up less than 1% of

the beef supply in America, and comes at a price premium that is much higher than Responsibly

Raised beef in the US and grass-fed beef in Australia. Chipotle’s decision to source one quarter

of their beef from Australia saves them money, and increases stockholder and environmental

value. Grass-fed beef is shown to be much better for the environment; if the grass-fed beef does

not entirely offset the oil used to ship the beef, this tradeoff still does not outweigh the

stockholder value of the decision.

Though I have found that Chipotle provides an adequate amount of value creation to their

stakeholders, they have room to grow. In the future, they should strive for more grass-fed beef as

profit margins and supply allow. Additionally, Chipotle should become more transparent in their

marketing and information regarding animal welfare standards, as well as information on their

suppliers. Overall, Chipotle has managed to consistently provide stakeholder value to their

customers, animals, stockholders, and the environment, with the hope of improvement in the

future.

Part VIII: Appendix

This process of researching and writing this project has had a deep and personal impact

on my life. I have been a vegetarian for almost 10 years; several of those years it was because of

conviction, and several more it was because of habit and preference. After writing this project, I

have felt a renewed conviction to remain vegetarian, possibly even vegan. If I ever were to eat

meat again (or buy it for my future family), I see myself passionately choosing grass-fed,

organic, hormone-free meat (easier said than done). As for the dairy I purchase, I have already

begun seeking out milk and eggs that come from healthier, happier animals. It is more difficult,

inconvenient, and expensive, and sometimes hard to justify on a tight budget. However, I have

also researched the connection of food and faith, and I believe that Christians are called to be

highly conscious about what they are putting into their bodies.

When signing up for a church potluck, not many Christians will ask, “Which side dish

will glorify God the most?” Many Christians see food as a blessing, and will always thank God

before eating. This is a wonderful thing to do, but as farmer and evangelist Joel Salatin puts it,

“How many Christians think about what the Bible says when they walk into a grocery store or

restaurant… How many of us have had a sermon on agriculture?” (Salatin, 2016, p. 1). As trivial

as it sounds, I believe that God does care what we buy at the grocery store and eat at restaurants.

I’ve come to believe that what Christians choose to prepare and eat three times a day is an

important way to glorify God. As said in Corinthians 1, “Whether therefore you eat, or drink, or

whatever you do, do all to the glory of God” (10:31).

Growing up vegetarian, I have heard many times, “Jesus ate meat, so why won’t you eat

this hotdog?” Yes, Jesus did eat meat. One his greatest miracles was feeding five thousand

people bread and fish. The Bible does not tell us that eating meat is wrong. In fact, in Joel

Salatin’s latest book “The Pigness of Pigs,” he argues that killing and eating animals added value

to the lives of the disciples, and can add value to our lives now. Our lives are entirely dependent

on taking the lives of plants and animals; these living beings give the ultimate sacrifice of their

lives so that we may continue living, and that is not something that should be taken lightly.

Salatin compares the sacrifice of our food’s lives to the foundational sacrifice of our faith,

“Every time we kill something… in order to live, it should remind us not only of the sacrificial

death of Jesus that enables us to partake of eternal life, but also how precious life is. Life is so

precious that it requires death” (Salatin, 2016, p. 26). Wendell Berry, a renowned novelist,

farmer, and Christian writes, “When food, in the minds of eaters, is no longer associated with

farming and with the land, then the eaters are suffering a kind of cultural amnesia that is

misleading and dangerous” (Berry, 2010). Evangelical or not, American culture does not

encourage us to think about the long journey of ground beef.

I believe the fact that animals must to be killed in order to be eaten is a natural process of

sacrifice put into place when God gave humans dominion over all living things in Genesis 1:28.

But the way in which eating animals is presented in Scripture is much different than our

industrialized system today. I have read many verses and commentaries on the way animal

welfare is presented in the Bible (the topic deserves its own honors project), but I will attempt to

summarize a few key points. In the previously mentioned verses Genesis 1:28, God gives

humans dominion over all living things (including plants, animals, and the environment). The

Hebrew word used for dominion is “radah.” Scholars have studied radah in the context of its

dozen appearances in Scripture, and it appears to emphasize a compassion that, “displays

responsibility for others and that results in peace and prosperity” (Bunge, 2011, p. 86). In Ezekiel

34:4 and 29:15, and Isaiah 14:6, God condemns those who use brutality, cruelty, harshness, and

anger in their radah.

There are many verses in the Old Testament that express a necessary kindness to animals.

We are told to help an animal up it is has fallen, to not let animals work on the Sabbath, to not

make their work too strenuous, to expression compassion while slaughtering, to not separate

animals from their young, and much more (Deut 12:21, Exod 34:26, 23:19, 23:5, Lev 22:26-33,

Proverbs 27:23). Proverbs 12:10 states, “The righteous know the needs of their animals, but the

mercy of the wicked is cruel.” There are many more verses that demonstrate our responsibility to

care for animals and all living things, and in general, no one would disagree that Christians are

called to be kind. All of this to say, I have learned that Christians are called to treat all living

things with kindness and compassion, even in the act of slaughtering them (which Temple

Grandin reminds us is possible).

Joel Salatin summarizes these verses to mean more than just kindness to animals, but

respect. He asks the reader to ask the question, “If I were an animal, would I want to live like

this?” (p 25). Salatin owns and operates the famous Polyface Farms, a highly respected, pasture-

based, hormone-free Virginia operation cited several times in Michael Pollan’s work as the ideal

meat processing facility. The way that Salatin raises and kills his pigs, chickens, and cows is

done so with respect for the animals’ unique identities and needs (note the title of his most recent

book, The Pigness of Pigs). I have come to believe that the current industrialized beef system,

designed to maximize efficiency, has strayed away from God’s original intention and does not

respect the cows’ needs. Our current system separates calves from their mothers at a very young

age and requires them to live in crowded, manure-filled feedlots. Our system feeds cows what

they are not designed to eat, and makes them sick. Our system gives cows hormones to make

them grow faster, killing them at an unnaturally young age. Our system removes life and death

from the whole process, encouraging consumers to think of beef as a product rather than a once

living animal. Our system ravages the environment, quickly depleting the earth of its natural

resources. I do not think eating animals is wrong, but I believe our industrialized meat system

does not live up to a Christian’s calling to have dominion over the earth.

There are many more passages that describe our connection to nature and the

environment in Ecclesiastes, Songs of Solomon, Proverbs, Isaiah, Genesis, and so on (Bunge,

2011, p. 86). In Genesis, the first task given to Adam and Eve is to tend to the Garden of Eden.

The same meaning of the word radah applies to our stewardship of the environment when God

gave us dominion over the world and its living creatures. Many verses in the Bible personify

nature, speaking of how the plants and animals worship the Lord, “For you shall go out in joy

and be led forth in peace; the mountains and the hills before you shall break forth into singing,

and all the trees shall clap their hands” (Isaiah 55:12). It is foolish to believe that we are not

called to be stewards of the environment, yet so many Christians do not realize the

environmental impact of their food.

That being said, it is very difficult to avoid this system. Even if you decided to start

eating grass-fed and hormone-free beef, labeling is never a 100% guarantee. Still, I think there

are several ways that Christians can change their lifestyles in order to honor God with their

meals. In his essay titled “Pleasure of Eating,” Wendell Berry suggests several ways that

Christians may eat more responsibly. First, to actively become more conscious of the life and

death cycle of your food, appreciating the sacrifice all plants and animals give in order to

become your meal. Second, Berry urges Christians to cook more of the meals rather than eating

out, giving the cooks more control over the ingredients used. Cooking at home requires more

education about the ingredients you buy; Berry suggests learning the origins of your food, and

whenever possible, buying directly from a local farmer rather than a super market. Finally, he

urges Christians to lean as much as possible about the industrial food system and agriculture,

arming ourselves with education (Berry, 2010).

I agree full-heatedly with Berry’s steps toward responsibly eating; in regards to changing

our mindset, I think simply changing the way we pray before every meal will reconnect us with

the sacrificial nature of food. As Christians, I also believe we should be more conscious about

the amount of meat we eat. Eating less beef, but more sustainable, humane beef, and

consequently expensive beef, is a good way to be stewards of the environment.

But then there is the important question, is a company like Chipotle ethical in sourcing

beef at all? Is it wrong for Christians to eat beef at Chipotle, or any fast-food restaurant? (Or any

restaurant?) I do not have all those answers, and feel I am not qualified to say whether or not it is

a sin for someone to eat a steak burrito at Chipotle or a hamburger at McDonald’s. After this

project, I am highly skeptical of the entire fast food industry in general, but I can still say with

certainty that I am thankful a fast food company like Chipotle exists. Unless our world faces an

apocalyptic disaster, I am certain large chain and fast food companies will always exist. The fact

that Chipotle makes an effort to source humanely raised, grass-fed beef is important, and has a

real impact on the industry as a whole. Chipotle has, at times, resorted to serving conventionally

raised beef, which is unfortunate. Still, I see their business model as a true example of “Engaging

the culture (fast food), changing the world (the industrial meat system).” The CEO of Stonyfield

dairy, one of the largest organic and ethical dairy companies in the country, quotes in Food, Inc.,

We’re not going to get rid of capitalism in the time that we need to arrest global

warming... We need to not be David up against Goliath, we need to be Goliath. We want

to prove that business can be part of the solution to the globe’s environmental problems,

and at the same time, we need to prove that we could be highly profitable (Kenner, 2008).

I believe this quote to be relevant in Chipotle’s circumstance. I hope to see the restaurant chain

improve in the future, in addition to more companies following their lead toward sustainable,

humane beef processing.

As for whether or not it is ethical to eat at Chipotle: I believe Wendell Berry is correct by

encouraging us to buy better ingredients and cook more often. However, if you need somewhere

to go on your lunch break, I believe Chipotle to be one of your best options.

Part IX: References

Allen, & Stanton. (n.d.). Altered egos: Antibiotic effects on food animal microbiomes. Retrieved

May 26, 2016, from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25002091

Andersen, K. (Director). (2014). Cowspiracy: The Sustainability Secret [Motion picture]. United

States: A.U.M. Films & Media.

Berry, W. (2010, December 10). Wendell Berry: The Pleasure of Eating. Retrieved May 23,

2016, from http://www.rodalesorganiclife.com/wellbeing/wendell-berry-pleasure-eating

Berry, W. (2009). Bringing it to the table: On farming and food. Berkeley: Counterpoint.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2016). Escherichia coli. Retrieved May 26, 2016,

from http://www.cdc.gov/ecoli/

Certified Humane. (2009, August 24). Beef Alliance Profile: Meyer Natural Angus - Certified

Humane. Retrieved May 23, 2016, from http://certifiedhumane.org/beef-alliance-profile-

meyer-natural-angus/

Charles, D. (2013, October 3). Why Lots Of Grass-Fed Beef Sold In U.S. Comes From Down

Under. Retrieved May 23, 2016, from

http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2013/10/04/228659915/why-most-grass-fed-beef-

sold-in-u-s-comes-from-down-under

Chipotle Mexican Grill. (2015, March 27). 2014 Chipotle Annual Report. Retrieved from

file:///C:/Users/wilfordm/Downloads/2014 Annual Report_Color (1).pdf

Chipotle Mexican Grill. (2016, March 24). 2015 Chipotle Annual Report. Retrieved from

file:///C:/Users/wilfordm/Downloads/2015 Annual Report_Color (1).pdf

Chipotle Mexican Grill. (n.d.). Food with Integrity. Retrieved May 26, 2016, from

https://www.chipotle.com/food-with-integrity

CSR Quest. (n.d.). Strategic CSR Corporate Responsibility & Sustainability. Retrieved May 23,

2016, from http://www.csrquest.net/default.aspx?articleID=13197

Daley, C. (2009, July 29). Nutrition Journal. Retrieved May 23, 2016, from

https://nutritionj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1475-2891-9-10

Ells, S. (2014, July 28). Conventional vs. Grass-fed Beef. Retrieved May 23, 2016, from

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-ells/conventional-vs-grassfed-_b_5405894.html

FDA. (2012, April 5). FDA: Drug Use Review. Retrieved from

http://www.fda.gov/downloads/drugs/drugsafety/informationbydrugclass/ucm319435.pdf

Grandin, T. (2014, October). Recommended Captive Bolt Stunning Techniques for Cattle

(Updated October 2014). Retrieved May 23, 2016, from

http://www.grandin.com/humane/cap.bolt.tips.html

Grandin, T. (2001, April 4). McDonald’s Audits. Retrieved May 23, 2016, from

http://www.grandin.com/welfare/corporation.agents.html

Grohman, J. (n.d.). Why We Need Cows. Retrieved May 26, 2016, from

http://www.mofga.org/Publications/MaineOrganicFarmerGardener/Summer2010/Cows/t

abid/1614/Default.aspx

Hickman, M. (2009, October 31). Study claims meat creates half of all greenhouse gases.

Retrieved May 23, 2016, from http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-

change/study-claims-meat-creates-half-of-all-greenhouse-gases-1812909.html

Jack in the Box (2015, November 20). Animal Welfare at Jack in the Box Inc. Retrieved from

http://www.jackintheboxinc.com/assets/animal-welfare-report.pdf

Jargon, J., & Newman, J. (2016, March 16). Chipotle Weighs Stepping Back From Some Food-

Safety Changes. Retrieved May 23, 2016, from http://www.wsj.com/articles/chipotle-

taps-food-safety-czar-1458068972

Linnekin, B. (2016, January 16). The USDA's Abdication of Defining 'Grass-Fed' Is Good For

Consumers. Retrieved May 23, 2016, from http://reason.com/archives/2016/01/16/why-

the-usdas-abdication-of-grass-fed-la

Lymbery, P., & Oakeshott, I. (n.d.). Farmageddon: The true cost of cheap meat.

McWilliams, J. (2012, June 5). A Spy in the Slaughterhouse. Retrieved May 23, 2016, from

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/06/a-spy-in-the-

slaughterhouse/258110/

Meyer Beef. (n.d.). About Us: Meyer Natural Angus Beef. Retrieved from

http://www.meyernaturalangus.com/our-promise

McDonald's Corp. (n.d.). Advancing Farm Animal Welfare. Retrieved May 23, 2016, from

http://www.aboutmcdonalds.com/mcd/sustainability/sourcing/animal-health-and-

welfare/issues-we-re-focusing-on/advancing-farm-animal-welfare.html

National Cattlemen's Beef Association. (n.d.). Explore Beef. Retrieved May 26, 2016, from

http://www.explorebeef.org/cmdocs/explorebeef/lifecycle handout.pdf

Nowak, P. (2015, May 14). How McDonald's has shaped the food biz. Retrieved May 23, 2016,

from http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/how-mcdonald-s-has-shaped-the-food-biz-

1.3074081

PBS. (n.d.). Frontline: Modern Meat. Retrieved May 26, 2016, from

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/meat/interviews/schlosser.html

Peterson, H. (2015). The ridiculous reason McDonald's sold Chipotle and missed out on billions

of dollars. Retrieved May 23, 2016, from http://www.businessinsider.com/the-ridiculous-

reason-mcdonalds-sold-chipotle-2015-5

Pollan, M. (2006). The omnivore's dilemma: A natural history of four meals. New York: Penguin

Press.

Pollan, M. (2006, May 7). Voting With Your Fork. Retrieved May 23, 2016, from

http://pollan.blogs.nytimes.com/2006/05/07/voting-with-your-fork/?_r=1

Pollan, M. (2011, September 11). How Change Is Going to Come in the Food System. Retrieved

May 26, 2016, from http://michaelpollan.com/articles-archive/how-change-is-going-to-

come-in-the-food-system/

Profita, C. (2012, October 26). Which Is Greener: Grass-Fed Or Grain-Fed Beef? Retrieved May

23, 2016, from http://www.opb.org/news/blog/ecotrope/which-is-greener-grass-fed-or-

grain-fed-beef/

Radke, A. (n.d.). Chipotle's "Beef" With American Beef Frustrates U.S. Ranchers. Retrieved

May 26, 2016, from http://beefmagazine.com/blog/chipotle-s-beef-american-beef-

frustrates-us-ranchers

Robert, K. (Director). (2008). Food, Inc [Motion picture]. United States: Participant Media.

Robinson, J. (2004). Pasture perfect: The far-reaching benefits of choosing meat, eggs, and

dairy products from grass-fed animals. Vashon, WA: Vashon Island Press.

Salatin, J. (2016). Pigness of Pigs. Hachette Nashville.

Schafer, S. (2014, July 02). Chipotle Defends Beef Decision: Interview with Chris Arnold.

Retrieved May 26, 2016, from

http://www.agweb.com/article/chipotle_defends_beef_decision_naa_sara_schafer/

Sergio, M. (n.d.) (2003). Causes of Deforestation of the Brazilian Amazon. Retrieved May 22,

2016, from https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/15060/277150

PAPER0 wbwp0no1022.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

Slaughter, L. (2011, February 23). Confirmed: 80 Percent of all antibacterial drugs used on

animals, endangering human health. Retrieved May 23, 2016, from

https://louise.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/confirmed-80-percent-all-

antibacterial-drugs-used-animals-endangering

Schneider, K., & Garrett, L. (2009, June 19). Non-therapeutic Use of Antibiotics in Animal

Agriculture, Corresponding Resistance Rates, and What Can be Done About It. Retrieved

May 23, 2016, from http://www.cgdev.org/article/non-therapeutic-use-antibiotics-animal-

agriculture-corresponding-resistance-rates-and-what

Steinfeld, H. (2006). Livestock's long shadow: Environmental issues and options. Rome: Food

and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

The Wendy's Company. (n.d.). Wendy's Animal Welfare Program. Retrieved May 23, 2016,

from https://www.wendys.com/en-us/about-wendys/animal-welfare-program

Thornton, P., Herrero, M., & Ericksen, P. (2011). Livestock Exchange. Retrieved May 22, 2016,

from https://cgspace.cgiar.org/bitstream/handle/10568/10601/IssueBrief3.pdf

USDA. (n.d.). Humane Methods of Slaughter Act. Retrieved May 23, 2016, from

https://awic.nal.usda.gov/government-and-professional-resources/federal-laws/humane-

methods-slaughter-act

USDA. (n.d.). Slaughter Inspection 101. Retrieved May 23, 2016, from

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/food-safety-education/get-answers/food-

safety-fact-sheets/production-and-inspection/slaughter-inspection-101/slaughter-

inspection-101

USDA. (2014). Livestock Slaughter 2014 Summary. Retrieved May 22, 2016, from

http://www.usda.gov/nass/PUBS/TODAYRPT/lsan0415.pdf

Weber, C., & Matthews, S. (2008, March 14). Food-miles and the relative climate impacts of

food choices in the United States. Retrieved from

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/students/envs_4800/weber_2009.pdf

Weber, C. (2013, February 01). Upping the steaks: How grass-fed beef is reshaping ag and

helping the planet. Retrieved May 23, 2016, from http://grist.org/food/upping-the-steaks-

how-grass-fed-beef-is-reshaping-ag-and-helping-the-planet/

Weiss, E. (2013, September 23). What does "The Scarecrow" tell us about Chipotle? Retrieved

May 26, 2016, from http://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/what-does-the-

scarecrow-tell-us-about-chipotle

Wicks, A. C., Freeman, E., Werhane, P., & Martin, K. (2010). Business ethics: A managerial

approach. Boston: Prentice Hall.

Wong, V. (2015, February 2). Chipotle: The Definitive Oral History. Retrieved May 23, 2016,

from http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-chipotle-oral-history/