Activists Target the 'Genocide Olympics'

Saying China's oil purchases support violence in Darfur, human-rights groups are pressuring McDonald's and other sponsors of the Games

Peter Parks/AFP/Getty Images

by Aili McConnon

There are still six months to go before the opening ceremonies of the Beijing Olympics this summer, but the heat is already on McDonald's (MCD) and other sponsors of the games. Human-rights groups are stepping up pressure on multinational advertisers that haven't spoken out against the killing in the Sudanese region of Darfur. Activists maintain that China's purchases of oil from Sudan support the Khartoum regime despite global sanctions over its human-rights record. "We will use our elbows if it helps the people of Darfur," says actor Mia Farrow, chairman of a group called Dream for Darfur.

Farrow's group started politely last summer, when it asked 19 corporate sponsors to contact the International Olympic Committee and the Chinese government about Darfur and to sign a statement of concern about violence there. In November the group released a "report card" on the issue, giving General Electric (GE) the top score, a C+, because it got in touch with the IOC and provided $2 million in aid to refugees in Darfur. McDonald's and Adidas (ADDDY) "barely passed," according to the group, but they got credit for meeting with Dream for Darfur and reaching out to the IOC and others. The rest got Ds and Fs, says the group's director, Jill Savitt. "None of these companies really wants be the spouting whale that gets the harpoon from China," she says.

Now, Dream for Darfur is preparing to toughen its tactics. The group aims to target the different "exposures and weak points" of specific brands, Savitt says. Plans include large-scale demonstrations, online videos, and stickers such as "McDonald's: Proud Sponsors of the Genocide Olympics" aimed at prodding the fast-food chain and other companies to do more for human-rights issues. They want companies to send executives to meet with Farrow, contact the U.N. about the state of peacekeeping in Darfur, and call for Sudanese war criminals to be banned from attending the Olympics.

High-Profile Convert

McDonald's isn't the group's only target. Dream for Darfur has hooked up with the broader Save Darfur Coalition, which comprises 180 organizations, to target all of the Olympic sponsors. For its upcoming campaign, Dream for Darfur will enlist the help of a student group called STAND, whose members will plaster college campuses with posters and handbills linking sponsors with the "Genocide Olympics." The group will also work with Save Darfur, which developed print and broadcast ads earlier this year to encourage Fidelity, Franklin Templeton, and other mutual funds to divest from Sudan.

Darfur activists scored a coup on Feb. 12 when Farrow and others persuaded film director Steven Spielberg to resign as artistic director of the opening ceremonies. That has given their efforts renewed momentum, says Tim Smith, director of Walden Asset Management, an investment firm that aims to fund "socially responsible" companies. Spielberg's resignation "strengthened the position that by saying nothing, companies are giving an implicit blessing to human-rights violations connected to the Chinese government," Smith says.

Even though McDonald's didn't earn a failing grade on the first report card, Dream for Darfur says the company could do a lot more. And with 30,000 restaurants worldwide, the chain is more vulnerable than nonretail sponsors such as GE. If McDonald's doesn't do enough by April, says Savitt, it will have to contend with picketers—including genocide survivors—outside its restaurants.

Questionable Results

Despite the pressure, McDonald's hasn't changed its Olympic marketing efforts. It has introduced a new burger for the games called the China-Mac and will plaster its stores with the five-ring Olympic logo. The company also expects to send 1,300 employees to serve athletes, coaches, and others at the games. Darfur is a matter for the U.N. and other international groups, says Vice-President for Corporate Relations Walt Riker. "We are in an ongoing dialogue with the IOC and support its call for intervention by the proper governmental bodies," Riker wrote in an e-mail.

That's smart, say some public-relations pros. Until sponsors get a better handle on whether their shareholders and customers really feel they should speak up on human rights, it's best to move cautiously, says crisis management consultant Jonathan Bernstein. He notes that any negative impact from the activists will be softened by the "cushion of goodwill" from charitable activities such as the Ronald McDonald House. Online chatter and viral videos could be the most damaging, says Bernstein, because "anything on the Internet lives forever." If videos are viewed by millions of users, a Web search of the company's name could turn up lots of negative coverage.

Others argue that tactics such as those planned by Dream for Darfur could be counterproductive. Demanding that sponsors publicly excoriate Beijing for its ties to Sudan won't save any lives in Darfur, says Bill Shireman, director of Future 500, a nonprofit that creates programs to help companies better understand the concerns of various stakeholders. "Picketing McDonald's won't advance their objective because there is no legitimate connection," Shireman wrote in an e-mail. "The media and public know that."

McConnon is a staff editor for BusinessWeek in New York.