This paper is concerned with analyzing McDonald's language use in its response to two different social issues: one regarding employees ('McJob') and the other regarding the environment (culpability for deforestation). It discusses and compares these two different social interactions in terms of discourse formations (DFs) - [MCJOB] and [DEFORESTATION] - based on McAndrew's [2001. Intertextuality, heteroglossia and systemic functional linguistics: A framework for analyzing ideology (Ph.D. thesis, Macquarie University, NCELTR, Sydney); 2004. Towards a framework for analyzing ideology: Applying intertextuality, heteroglossia and systemic functional linguistics. In M. Putz, J. Aerselaer & T. van Dijk (Eds.), Discourse, and social practice. Frankfruit: Peter Lang] framework for analysis of ideology. In particular, the meanings constructed in each of the DFs are realized by the analysis of social actions and social actors using Van Leeuwen's [1993. Language and representation - The recontextualization of participants, activities and reactions (PhD thesis, University of Sydney); 1995. Representing social action. Discourse & Society, 6(1), 81-106; 1996. The representation of social actors. In C.R. Caldas-Coulthard & M. Coulthard (Eds.), Texts and practices: Readings in critical discourse analysis. London & NY: Routledge] representational model. It was found that McDonald's responded differently to the criticism in the two different areas. McDonald's challenges the term 'McJob' by (re)constructing meanings to disagree with the term, but it collaborates with Greenpeace, which had published two reports blaming McDonald's contribution to deforestation in the Amazon area. However, simultaneously, through intertextual meaning-making, McDonald's commonly attempts to recontextualize its social practices by promoting its socially responsible business practices.