Nestle report


Published on

“ Worldwide boycott of nestle products after the company failed to properly communicate and market its breast milk substitute (infant formula) product, which has resulted in the deaths of millions of infants. ”

Published in: Business, Health & Medicine
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Nestle report

  1. 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Nestle is a multinational corporation , headquarted in Switzerland, is one of the largest food company in the world measured by revenues. Though various controversies revolves around this multinational company, one of the most confusing and prolonged one is the “Breast milk substitute infant formula”. This controversy has turned up the heads of millions of people all around the world, as several infants died in developing countries after using Nestle’s breast subsitute milk for infants. Babies died because their mothers were not literate enough to use the prodcut. They didn’t even have the proper means of making that infant formula because of shortage of various basic necessties in developing countries such as clean water, electricity, fuel and etc. Leading organizations all around the world took part in the boycott of Nestle’s products during the late 1970’s. Nestle admitted its mistake of doing aggressive marketing in developing countries and obeyed to follow the code of conducts in its marketing practices, recommended by World Health organization. The boycott was first initiated by USA, which gain its momentum worldwide. Also in Pakistan this controversy gained ground when one of the employee of Nestle , accused the company that it uses malpractices to promote its infant formula. Several pamplets named as “Baby Killers” were distrubuted in UK and Nestle sued the publisher of German-language translation and after two year trials court advocated in favor of Nestle because they could not be held responsible for the infant deaths in terms of criminal law. The controversy did exist even after the company accepted the codes of WHO. Some organizations condemned Nestle, that it has been selling free samples to the mothers of new born children while they are in hospital, and the family has to purchase new packets from the market because the intial dose of it has made their children addictive to it. However Nestle denied such allegations. The International Nestlé Boycott Committee, the secretariat for which is the UK GROUP Baby Milk Action, currently coordinates the Nestlé boycott. Company practices are monitored by the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN), which consists of more than 200 groups in over 100 countries. Page 1 of 19
  2. 2. Though this controversy had badly impacted the image of Nestle, but still Nestle is one of the leading multi national corporation and has its huge market share all over the world. INTRODUCTION OF NESTLE: Nestle is the world's leading nutrition, health and wellness company. "Good Food, Good Life" is the promise we commit to everyday, everywhere – to enhance lives, throughout life, with good food and beverages. Nestle is a Swiss multinational nutritional and health-related consumer goods company headquartered in Vevey, Switzerland. It is the largest food company in the world measured by revenues. In 1866, the first European condensed milk factory was opened in Cham, Switzerland, by the Anglo-Swiss Condensed Milk Company. In Vevey, Switzerland, our founder Henri Nestlé, a German pharmacist, launched his Farine lactée, a combination of cow’s milk, wheat flour and sugar, saving the life of a neighbour’s child. Nutrition has been the cornerstone of our company ever since. “Henri Nestlé, himself an immigrant from Germany, was instrumental in turning his Company towards international expansion from the very start. We owe more than our name, our logo and our first infant-food product to our founder. Henri Nestlé embodied many of the key attitudes and values that form part and parcel of our corporate culture: pragmatism, flexibility, the willingness to learn an open mind and respect for other people and cultures.” Peter Brabeck-Letmathe, Nestlé Chairman Nestle was formed in 1905 by the merger of the Anglo-Swiss Milk Company, established in 1866 by brothers George Page and Charles Page, and Farine Lactee Henri Nestle, founded in 1866 by Henri Nestlé. The company grew significantly during the First World War and again following the Second World War, expanding its offerings beyond its early condensed milk and infant formula products. The company has made a number of Page 2 of 19
  3. 3. corporate acquisitions, including Crosse & Blackwell in 1950, Findus in 1963, Libby's in 1971, Rowntree Mackintosh in 1988 and Gerber in 2007. Nestlé has a primary listing on the SIX Swiss Exchange and is a constituent of the Swiss Market Index. It has a secondary listing on Euro next. Nestlé's products include baby food, bottled water, breakfast cereals, coffee, confectionery, dairy products, ice cream, pet foods and snacks. 29 of Nestlé's brands have annual sales of over 1 billion Swiss francs (about $ 1.1 billion), Nestlé has around 450 factories, operates in 86 countries, and employs around 328,000 people. It is one of the main shareholders of L’Oreal, the world's largest cosmetics company. SWOT ANALYSIS OF NESTLE STRENGTHS -------- ON WEAKNESESS ---------- TO BUILD TO COVER ONOPPORTUNITIES ------------- TO CAPTURE THREATS ----------------------------- TO DEFEND ON STRENGHTS The greatest strength of nestle is that it includes a culture that is team focused and an open door policy. Nestle focus on collectivism and performance orientation attitude, which encourages employees to work harder. Another thing is high level of market share and that people all over the world trust and recognizes Nestle as a big brand name. Strength is that people trust on Nestle. It looks at achieving higher volumes by renovating existing products and innovating new products. Strength is that they are low cost operators which allow them to not only beat competition but also edging ahead operating excellence, innovation, renovation, product availability and communication are major strengths. IT is an important aspect that people all around the world are becoming more conscious about health, that’s why they prefer Nestle. WEAKNESESS Page 3 of 19
  4. 4. One major weakness of Nestle is that it is entering into markets that are already mature and can give a tough competition to new entrants. Nestle Plain Yogurt has proved to be a Nestle weakness because it has been unable to make its market place in USA. But Nestle by analyzing the sensitive areas can overcome its weaknesses. OPPORTUNITIES Nestle in Pakistan has a great opportunity for expanding its markets because in Pakistan there is a large ready market of food and beverages due to trends of eating and the increasing .I t also has opportunities largely in China and India as well. Through proper marketing research Nestle can cash on to these opportunities. Threats Nestle is facing the threats by worldwide community due to its violation of international marketing standards. Many conferences and campaigns have been held against Nestle in this regard which can damage the name and trust of its customers. Another threat is due to the increasing popularity of its competitor OLPERS in local and international markets. PROBLEM STATEMENT “ Worldwide boycott of nestle products after the company failed to properly communicate and market its breast milk substitute (infant formula) product, which has resulted in the deaths of millions of infants. ” PROBLEMS FACED BY NESTLE The problems for Nestle in today’s world are the claims faced by it as being charged with the responsibility of violating the “International Marketing Codes”. Nestle claims that I is doing nothing wrong and unethical in the way it markets is baby foods around the world. Baby milk action has raised the case of “SYED AAMAR RAZA” who has publicizes evidence of Nestlé’s malpractice in Pakistan also as well. It has been claimed that company marketing is causing unnecessary deaths and sufferings of babies, largely among poor because they do not use the proper amount of powder in order to save some volume for future use which causes great danger to baby life. Page 4 of 19
  5. 5. BACKGROUND OF THE PROBLEM: Beginning in the late 1970s Nestlé began to attract global criticism for its infant-formula marketing policies, especially those conducted in developing countries. Public outcry peaked with the Nestle boycott of 1977 which (though suspended for several years in the mid-1980s) remains in effect today. Nestle is the most boycotted company in the world as a result • Entitled with “Baby Killer’’ in 1970 in developing countries • Nestlé advertised and still advertises its formula as a risk-free substitute (or even a preferable alternative) to breast milk, resulting in increased use and often replacing available breast milk. • Nestle advertised widely infant product was valuable in its nutrients which have complete benefits for baby from birth to one year • Formula was contaminated in poor countries, leading to disease in vulnerable infants. Because of the high illiteracy rates in developing nations many mothers are not aware of the sanitation methods needed in the preparation of bottles • UNICEF estimates that a non-breastfed child living in disease-ridden and unhygienic conditions is between six and 25 times more likely to die of diarrhea and four times more likely to die of pneumonia than a breastfed child • Many poor mothers try to save money by economizing on the formula by using less than the recommended dose or substituting it with other inferior alternatives such as cow’s milk, rice water or corn starch with Nestle, among other companies that market infant formulas, has been the focus of attack from different groups. The source of this controversy sprang from the number of deaths of babies from Third World countries that are alleged to have been the result of aggressive advertising of the Nestle infant formula. Nestle stands by its position that it has been responsible in its product marketing stressing, among other things, that (1) it has never advocated bottle feeding instead of breast feeding and (2) that the infant formula has a vital role in proper infant nutrition as a supplement. Nevertheless, Nestle adopted measures to address Page 5 of 19
  6. 6. the concerns of different groups, like WHO, by discontinuing its mass media advertising of infant formula, carrying out comprehensive health education programs, and supported the WHO code. By late 1990s, Nestle was again accused of continuously violating the WHO code and concerned groups have called for the boycott of Nestle products. By 2001, the HIV crisis in certain parts of the world, like South Africa, has caused a shift in preference from breast-feeding to infant formula. Consequently, Nestle faces the challenge of addressing such high demand. Finally, Nestle, as an MNC, carries new responsibilities that come along with marketing its products like participating in the fight against HIV and AIDS especially in developing countries. NESTLE CONTROVERSIES:There are many criticism on the nestle company such as Ethiopian debt, Melamine in Chinese milk, Green washing, Zimbabwe farms, Child labor but one of the most prominent controversies involving Nestle concerns the promotion of the use of infant formula to mothers across the world, including developing countries an issue that attracted significant attention in 1977 as a result of the Nestle boycott, which is still ongoing. NESTLE BOYCOTT:The Nestle boycott is a boycott launched on July 7, 1977, in the United States against the Swiss- based Nestle Corporation. It spread in the United States, and expanded into Europe in the early 1980s. It was prompted by concern about Nestlé’s "aggressive marketing" of breast milk substitutes (infant formula), particularly in less economically developed countries (LEDCs), which campaigners claim contributes to the unnecessary suffering and deaths of babies, largely among the poor. The newly formed Infant Formula Action Coalition (INFACT) started a consumer boycott against Nestlé and demanded the end of infant formula promotion. They also lobbied U.S. Senator Edward Kennedy, chair of the Subcommittee on Health and Scientific Page 6 of 19
  7. 7. Research of the Committee of Human Resources, to hold Public Hearings on the infant formula issue. The Public Hearings took place in May 1978. In July, Kennedy met with representatives from the industry, including Nestlé, to determine what to do next. At the request of the Infant Council of Infant Food Industries, and with a support letter from Nestlé, Kennedy asked the director general of the World Health Organization (WHO) to sponsor an international conference to discuss the issue and come up with an international recommendation for marketing infant formula in developing countries. In 1979, Nestlé developed internal guidelines limiting advertising and sales promotions, curbing free samples and supplies, spelling out the content of informational materials and ending all financial incentives for health professionals to sell formula. In the same year, WHO and UNICEF held a meeting on Infant and Young Child Feeding. IBFAN CRITICISM ON NESTLE:Groups such as the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN) and Save the Children, advocacy groups and charities claim nestle unethical methods of promoting infant formula over breastfeeding that has led to health problems and deaths among infants in less economically developed countries. They claim that Nestlé distributes free formula samples to hospitals and maternity wards; after leaving the hospital, the formula is no longer free, but because the supplementation has interfered with lactation, the family must continue to buy the formula. IBFAN also allege that Nestlé uses "humanitarian aid" to create markets, does not label its products in a language appropriate to the countries where they are sold, and offers gifts and sponsorship to influence health workers to promote its products. Nestlé denies these allegations. There are four problems that can arise when poor mothers in developing countries switch to formula: • Formula must normally be mixed with water, which is often contaminated in poor countries, leading to disease in vulnerable infants. Because of the low literacy rates in Page 7 of 19
  8. 8. developing nations, many mothers are not aware of the sanitation methods needed in the preparation of bottles. Even mothers able to read in their native tongue may be unable to read the language in which sterilization directions are written. • Although some mothers can understand the sanitation standards required, they often do not have the means to perform them: fuel to boil water, electric (or other reliable) light to enable sterilization at night. UNICEF estimates that a formula-fed child living in diseaseridden and unhygienic conditions is between six and 25 times more likely to die of diarrhea and four times more likely to die of pneumonia than a breastfed child. • Many poor mothers use less formula powder than is necessary, in order to make a container of formula last longer. As a result, some infants receive inadequate nutrition from weak solutions of formula. • Breast milk has many natural benefits lacking in formula. Nutrients and antibodies are passed to the baby while hormones are released into the mother's body. Breastfed babies are protected, in varying degrees, from a number of illnesses, including diarrhea, bacterial meningitis, gastroenteritis, ear infection, and respiratory infection. Breast milk contains the right amount of the nutrients essential for neuronal (brain and nerve) development. The bond between baby and mother can be strengthened during breastfeeding. Frequent and exclusive breastfeeding can also delay the return of fertility, which can help women in developing countries to space their births. The World Health Organization recommends that, in the majority of cases, babies should be exclusively breast fed for the first six months. Marketing of breast-milk substitutes The debate over the marketing of breast-milk substitute in developing countries entered the public sphere in 1973 with the publication of “The Baby Food Tragedy” – an interview with two child nutrition experts – by The New Internationalist. However, the controversy did not boil over until the publication in 1974 of a pamphlet, “The Baby Killer”, by the British organization War on Want. This pamphlet was widely Page 8 of 19
  9. 9. distributed and translated. In particular, a German left-wing student organization, Arbeitsgruppe Dritte Welt (Third World Working Group), published the same year a translated and altered version under the name “Nestlé tötet Babies” (Nestlé kills babies). Nestlé sued the organization for libel. Although it won the court case in 1976, the publicity around it contributed to making the pamphlet known in the United States and elsewhere. At the same time, Nestlé continued to review its marketing practices in developing countries. In 1974 and 1975, Nestlé revised the contents of its educational and informational materials to strengthen the emphasis on the importance of breastfeeding and to remove advertising or promotional material. By 1976, Nestlé was phasing out infant formula mass media advertising, and by 1978, this was withdrawn in all developing countries. In addition, the International Council of Infant Food Industries (ICIFI) was created by Nestlé and seven other infant formula manufacturers in 1975. A code of ethics was adopted to guide companies’ marketing and advertising practices. However, scientific evidence was pointing out to a more complex issue. Dana Raphael, Director of the Human Lactation Center of Connecticut, was one of the first scientists to hold infant formula manufacturers responsible for high infant mortality rates in developing countries. Yet, in 1976 after a two-year study, which observed how infants were fed in 11 different cultural settings around the world, she found that in the cultures studied a decline in breastfeeding was not a major part of the problem. In some, breastfeeding was still universally practiced. Most importantly, the study showed that mixed feeding was common: infants were breastfed but were also given other, and inappropriate, foods from a very early age. A WHO/UNICEF two-year Collaborative Study on Breastfeeding revealed the same patterns in 1979. Artificial baby milk controversy: 2006 Page 9 of 19
  10. 10. As the world's largest artificial baby milk producer, Nestlé has been pinpointed as a leading cause of the increasing worldwide infant mortality rates. The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that 1.5 million infants die each year because of inappropriate feeding, given the fact that children vulnerable to disease are being fed with artificial breast milk substitutes rather than naturally breastfed. "A World Health Organization (WHO) International Code governing the marketing of artificial baby milk, drawn up in 1981 and agreed by 118 countries, says breastfeeding should be promoted above all other products and that leaflets and labels relating to breast milk substitutes should do nothing to undermine this. But Nestlé and other companies have been accused of flouting the rules with advertising, free samples, promotions and sponsorships. The latest monitoring report from the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN) uncovered about 2,000 violations of the code in 69 countries, with Nestlé responsible for more violations than any other of the big 16 baby food companies studied" MAIN PLAYERS:Following are the main players involved in the boycott of nestle milk which is greatly affecting the born babies so they play a significant role to give awareness to the people or especially mothers not to take nestle infant formula; • In parallel with the boycott, campaigners work for implementation of the Code and Resolutions in legislation. • Many European universities, colleges, and schools have banned the sale of Nestlé products from their shops and vending machines • Media also play a major role in the boycott of the unethical behavior of nestle • International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN) Page 10 of 19
  11. 11. • Infant Formula Action Coalition (INFACT) • World health organization (WHO) LITERATURE REVIEW: Nestled in controversy Issue 436 International Nestlé-Free Week takes place from 25 to 31 October. Ian Fitzpatrick looks back at the boycott and explains why challenging the aggressive marketing of babymilk formula is still so important. John Birdsall/Press Association Images In August 1973, New Internationalist published an interview with leading child nutrition experts who talked of a ‘worrying swing away from breastfeeding’ in favour of commercial breast-milk substitutes. The ‘Baby Food Tragedy’ article, along with Page 11 of 19
  12. 12. a 1974 War on Want report called ‘The Baby Killer’ and the 1975 documentary film Bottle Babies, drew widespread attention to the issue and led to an international campaign that continues today. Henri Nestlé’s ‘Milk Food’ was invented around 1867 and was soon being exported to European colonies. In the 1930s Dr Cecily Williams described the alarming rise in illness and death amongst babies whose mothers had been persuaded not to breastfeed and by the 1960s Dr Derrick Jelliffe, an expert in infant nutrition, had coined the term ‘commerciogenic malnutrition’. Launched on 4 July 1977, the US Nestlé Boycott demanded that Nestlé stop promoting infant formulas in developing countries. In 1979, the campaign went global. That same year, the World Health Organization hosted a meeting to develop a code regulating the marketing of infant formula, and in 1981, 118 countries voted in favour of the International Code – with only the US voting against it. The Code’s aim was ‘to contribute to the provision of safe and adequate nutrition for infants, by the protection and promotion of breastfeeding, and by ensuring the proper use of breast-milk substitutes’. Today, it is national law in over 60 countries. In 1984 Nestlé agreed to abide by the Code and the boycott was called off, but it was relaunched in 1988 with boycott co-ordinators saying the agreement had not been honoured. Nestlé is the market leader in sales of breast-milk substitutes and controls nearly 30 per cent of the babyfood market. The UK-based campaign Baby Milk Action is currently asking the public to email Nestlé over its latest global marketing strategy: the company has added logos to its packaging claiming its formula ‘protects’ babies and is promoting it to health workers, with claims that it reduces diarrhoea and is ‘the new ìGold Standardî in infant nutrition’. Yet the World Health Assembly reiterated in May 2010 that improved breastfeeding practices could save 1.5 million babies every year. ‘Nestlé is an aggressive company in all areas of its business,’ says Mike Brady from Baby Milk Action. ‘It promises shareholders five to six per cent growth per year and evaluates the profit from pushing its babymilk – in violation of the Code – against how this fuels the boycott, harms its image and loses it sales of other products. Boycotters have forced changes in Nestlé policies and practices – for example, compelling it to add warnings to Page 12 of 19
  13. 13. labels in the appropriate language about the importance of breastfeeding – but more pressure is needed. International Nestlé-Free Week is an opportunity to spread the word. Our aim this year is to have Nestlé remove the claims that its formula ìprotectsî babies, which undermine the message that breastfeeding protects.’ Nestle Policy • Breastfeeding is Best We believe that breastfeeding is the best start a baby can have in life. We support the World Health Organization’s recommendation calling for exclusive breastfeeding for the first six months of life, followed by continued breastfeeding along with the introduction of complementary foods as advised by a healthcare professional or health authority. We manufacture high-quality infant formula for babies who are not breastfed, and it is our commitment to make these products available in a responsible manner. Infant formula is a vital product for infants who are not breastfed. It is in fact the only product recognized to be a suitable breast-milk substitute by the World Health Organization (WHO). • The Nestlé Policy and Instructions on implementing the WHO Code We learned a great deal from our experience concerning breast-milk substitutes marketing in lower and middle-income countries, recognizing our responsibility to go beyond what were accepted marketing standards at the time. Following the adoption of the International Code for the Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes - English (pdf, 128 Kb) (‘WHO Code’) by the World Health Assembly in 1981, Nestlé was the first company to develop policies based on the WHO Code and apply them across our entire operations in developing countries. 152 higher-risk countries: The designation of a country as ‘higher-risk’ is based on UNICEF's data on levels of mortality and rates of acute malnutrition of children less than 5 years of age. It is our strong commitment to apply the WHO Code as implemented by national governments everywhere in the world. In addition, we follow the WHO Code as a Page 13 of 19
  14. 14. minimum requirement in 152 ‘higher-risk’ countries. For this purpose we have voluntarily issued the Nestlé Policy and Instructions on implementing the WHO Code - English (pdf, 2 Mb), which provide implementing instructions for aligning our marketing practices with the WHO Code. We have put in place rigorous internal procedures to ensure compliance with our policy, including internal and external audits, whistle-blowing procedures and reporting. • Addressing key challenges: Marketing of breast-milk substitutes and the WHO Code Nestlé supports the World Health Organization recommendation of exclusive breastfeeding followed by continued breastfeeding for the first six months of life along with the introduction of complementary foods as advised by a health professional. We seek to promote safe, adequate nutrition for infants by encouraging breastfeeding as the best start in life, and by manufacturing high-quality breast-milk substitutes (BMS) when a safe alternative is needed. We have developed a strong policy articulating our commitment to and implementation of the World Health Organization’s International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes (WHO Code), and applies a detailed global Management System, comprising explicit procedure manuals, an internal Ombudsman System, internal and external audits, training of staff and reporting on breast-milk substitute marketing and compliance. Corporate internal auditors audited some 22 countries in 2011, and Bureau Veritas conducted independent Code compliance audits in Laos, Cameroon and Jamaica. • Additional materials have been developed to facilitate guidance to marketing staff, including a web-based training and testing tool. • 22 internal audits were carried out in 2011, and Bureau Veritas conducted independent Code compliance audits in Laos, Cameroon and Jamaica. • 19 concerns about non-compliance with the WHO Code, attributable to Nestlé and requiring remediation, were raised in 2011; corrective action was taken in all instances. Page 14 of 19
  15. 15. • We will continually work to improve our practices and encourage all stakeholders to communicate their concerns to us. ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS: If we are in place of NESTLE we would reply to the boycott by the following: • We must support WHO's global public health recommendation calling for exclusive breastfeeding for six months and introduction of safe and appropriate complementary foods there after • We support efforts by governments to implement the International Code through legislation, regulation, or other appropriate measures • We must respond to all allegations of non-compliance • We would encourage Breastfeeding at the time of giving free samples • Give stress on communication • Give Live demonstration in public through media • We would clearly mentioned in packages that “Breastfeeding is an ultimate best • We would follow the international code of conduct for advertisement and promotion • We would give the necessary instruction to be required in the regional language for the benefit of illiterate mother • Not labeling, promoting or selling of complementary foods or drinks for infants under six months of age unless otherwise mandatory required by local code or measures; • Issuing detailed Procedure manuals containing internal Instructions for the implementation of WHO recommendations both at the corporate level and at the regional and country level; Page 15 of 19
  16. 16. • Aligning its marketing practices in detail on the recommendations of the WHO Code and relevant subsequent WHA Resolutions, and providing systematic training towards Code compliance to its marketing personnel; • Auditing on a regular basis its subsidiaries’ INFANT FORMULA marketing practices by corporate as well as local auditors, and submitting summary reports of those audits to review by the Audit Committee of the Nestlé Board of Directors; • Putting in place an Internal WHO Code Ombudsman System allowing Nestlé employees to alert the Company on potential non-compliance with the WHO Code in a confidential way, outside line management • Commissioning regular audits by an independent external auditor and making a summary of the audit findings publicly available; • Implementing a system for investigating all allegations of non-compliance, externally or internally reported, when sufficient information has been received, as well as taking corrective action on all substantiated non-compliance cases; • Commissioning independent external audits in case of allegations of multiple and/or serious non-compliance with the WHO Code by Nestlé; • Using results of information from Stakeholder input, as well as the recommendations deriving from internal and external audits to identify opportunities to improve our Code management system. IMPLICATION FOR FUTURE USE: INFANT FORMULAS must not be advertised or promoted directly to mothers or the general public either through public media or by personal contact between company representatives and the public. This restriction also applies to Nestlé websites. General information on infant feeding and baby care, which includes information on the proper use of INFANT FORMULA (such as mother books and posters) may only be distributed to mothers by health workers or displayed by them in health care facilities subject to the provisions of Art. 4.2, 4.3, 6.2 and 7.2. Such information may not feature Page 16 of 19
  17. 17. INFANTFORMULA brands and may not be used as advertising or promotion aimed at the general public. • No samples of INFANT FORMULAS should be given to the general public. Such samples may only be given to health workers, • We must investigate all of our product before launching the product • We must warn mother of the consequences of incorrect or inappropriate use of infant formula • A product should be promoted according to the people but which should not be harmful to them • NESTLE DOES NOT advertise or promote infant formula and follow-on formula for infants up to 12 months to the public • NESTLE DOES NOT market complementary foods and drinks for infants younger than 6 months • NESTLE DOES NOT permit staff whose responsibilities include the marketing of infant formula to make direct contact with mothers, except in response to consumer complaints • NESTLE DOES NOT use pictures of babies on its infant formula packs • NESTLE DOES NOT distribute free infant formula samples to mothers • NESTLE DOES NOT allow educational material relating to the use of infant formula to be displayed publicly in hospitals and clinics • NESTLE DOES NOT give financial or material incentives to health professionals for the purpose of promoting infant formula • NESTLE DOES NOT donates free infant formula to health care facilities for use by healthy newborn babies. Free infant formula may exceptionally be given to bona fide social welfare institutions upon their request to serve social or humanitarian purposes (e.g. where the government policy allows manufacturers to respond to a specific social request, for example if the mother dies in child birth) • NESTLE DOES NOT give incentives to its staff based on infant formula sales Page 17 of 19
  18. 18. CONCLUSION: It is clear from the case presented that the reputation of a company is decided not in terms of its sales or profits maximization but in terms of the good will it earns by adopting morals and values in its production, marketing and pricing. • The product and marketing should not violate the societal standards • Should not promote or undermine breastfeeding • The organization is responsible for any happenings or consequences in the society The issue of mixed feeding before six (6) months should be investigated and discouraged through sensitization programs at the community level not only at the facility level. The breastfeeding advocacy should adequately reflect the need for continuous breastfeeding after the six months period as well as the timely and appropriate introduction of complementary foods. Regulatory bodies must begin to extend enforcement to cover feeding bottles teats and condensed milks. To be effective the Regulations must be adequately disseminated. Besides, there is the need for health workers particularly nurses who manage health facilities in the rural areas to understand the circumstances under which infant formula could be used since under some conditions it becomes very relevant to offer artificial formula to save a life. Expression of breast milk should also be made part of antenatal grooming rather than the case-to-case basis. In response to the controversies mentioned above Nestle has affirmed that, “In order to continually improve our practices, we call on our stakeholders and the general public to directly communicate to us in detail any concern or allegation of non-compliance with our commitments. We commit to investigate and respond to all concerns raised by external stakeholders directly with us, provided that we receive enough information to carry out an investigation. This interaction with our external stakeholders helps us improve our monitoring of our WHO Code compliance, and through this external report we aim at providing to those stakeholders a feedback on their concerns, as well as giving to the general public better insights into our Code compliance record”. Page 18 of 19
  19. 19. Page 19 of 19