The Nestl' Case
Ultimately though, despites its protestations that it is doing no wrong, Nestlé still remains among the handful of companies universally condemned by anti-corporate activists, students unions, and pressure groups. A recent poll revealed that Nestlé was one of the world’s most boycotted companies, and was the number one target for boycotters in the UK. So, whilst the company may continue to dispute the legitimacy of the claims made against it, it still has a long way to go before it convinces its critics of its ethics. Given that the company has recently launched its own range of fair trade coffee, and is now a part owner (through its stake in L’Oreal) of the Body Shop, it remains to be seen whether the firm will be successful in attracting more ethically minded consumers.
Questions
1. Set out the main ethical criticisms of Nestlé’s marketing of infant formula. Which consumer rights are these practices failing to respect?
2. Many of the criticisms of Nestlé’s practices stem from the argument that consumers in the developing world are ‘vulnerable’. To what extent is this a valid argument?
3. What are the arguments for and against continuing the Nestlé boycott from the point of view of consumers seeking to enhance the well-being of mothers and babies in the developing world? What implications does your answer have for notions of consumer sovereignty?
4. How would you explain Nestlé’s apparent failure in pacifying its critics? What would you suggest the company do to end the boycott?
Sources
Clark, A. 2002. Nestlé appeases critics. Guardian, 29 March: 21.
Newton, L.H. 1999. Truth is the daughter of time: the real story of the Nestlé case. Business and Society Review, 104 (4): 367–98.
Skapinker, M. 2004. How baby milk marketing fed a long-life campaign. Financial Times, 26 May: 16.
www.babymilkaction.org
www.ibfan.org
Questions
1. Set out the main ethical criticisms of Nestlé’s marketing of infant formula. Which consumer rights are these practices failing to respect?
2. Many of the criticisms of Nestlé’s practices stem from the argument that consumers in the developing world are ‘vulnerable’. To what extent is this a valid argument?
3. What are the arguments for and against continuing the Nestlé boycott from the point of view of consumers seeking to enhance the well-being of mothers and babies in the developing world? What implications does your answer have for notions of consumer sovereignty?
4. How would you explain Nestlé’s apparent failure in pacifying its critics? What would you suggest the company do to end the boycott?
Sources
Clark, A. 2002. Nestlé appeases critics. Guardian, 29 March: 21.
Newton, L.H. 1999. Truth is the daughter of time: the real story of the Nestlé case. Business and Society Review, 104 (4): 367–98.
Skapinker, M. 2004. How baby milk marketing fed a long-life campaign. Financial Times, 26 May: 16.
www.babymilkaction.org
www.ibfan.org