Starbucks Vs McDonalds Who is More Green

Fast Company looks at both food chains to see who is more focused on
sustainability

author R. Paul Herman attempts to compare the two mega-chains. Below, we do the same.

Let's just be clear--the inherent unhealthiness of most McDonald's meals give the chain a major disadvantage, even when compared to Starbucks' high-calorie Frappucinos. That being said, McDonald's has made some inroads in sustainability. A few examples: a "green" McDonald's that offers an EV chargepoint, LED light fixtures, drought tolerant landscape plants, and an Energy Efficiency Education Dashboard; an environmental scorecard for suppliers; a successful sustainable fisheries program; and a next-generation fryer that allows restaurants to cook the same amount of product while using approximately 40% less oil than with traditional fryers.

But there's still plenty that would be would like to see. How about smaller portion sizes, for example? And yes, we realize that the "supersize" option is no longer available--but that's not enough. In an interview with R. Paul Herman, Bob Herman, the VP of Corporate Responsibility at McDonald's, explained, "We are offering choice--new menu items and new portion sizes, giving information to make these choices.  This is a significant thing to do." McDonald's would also do well to use more grass-fed beef and increase its use of organic fruits and vegetables. And then there's the most disturbing question of them all: why don't McDonald's burgers decompose?

for complete article-http://www.fastcompany.com/1648898/sustainability-faceoff-mcdonalds-vs-starbucks