Nestle Ethical Analysis
Ethical Analysis
Nestlé’s marketing tactics in promoting the use of infant formula in developing countries was not moral because:
1. Created a need where none existed before * In developing countries many women don’t work, don’t have money, and mothers stay home with their children, as such nursing is a necessity, but formula feeding is an unnecessary luxury. * Distributed free samples of baby formula and as a consequence mothers’ breast milk was not produced. Mothers were then forced to buy an expensive baby formula, which they did not know how to prepare and use accordingly (dilution, labels were not in the official language) * Unsafe water supplies, lack of sanitation (no clean, running water and soap), bottles cannot be kept sterile and formulas cannot be properly prepared 2. Convinced mothers that baby formula was indispensable. * Widespread misinformation about breast-feeding (hired women to pose as nurses) * False claims of the equivalence between breast milk and artificial substitutes (hospitals, doctors and health care professionals) * Devaluated women’s knowledge about breast-feeding in general. 3. Linked the product with a desirable notion—then giving a sample. * Advertisements and posters used idealistic images (often white children rather than the ethnicity of that country) suggesting that bottle-feeding is the modern, western way and the right way
* The company generally associated bottle-feeding with healthy babies (slogans, images, vitamins added to promote smarter babies)
Debate positions
Debates between Nestle and Baby Milk Action have always been avoided by the Nestle representatives, but pressure from the boycotts have forced them to respond to its critics since March 2001. Baby Milk Action suggest that the only reason Nestle is at the debates is because they hate the loss of sale resulted from the boycotts and the public’s awareness to the
Nestlé’s marketing tactics in promoting the use of infant formula in developing countries was not moral because:
1. Created a need where none existed before * In developing countries many women don’t work, don’t have money, and mothers stay home with their children, as such nursing is a necessity, but formula feeding is an unnecessary luxury. * Distributed free samples of baby formula and as a consequence mothers’ breast milk was not produced. Mothers were then forced to buy an expensive baby formula, which they did not know how to prepare and use accordingly (dilution, labels were not in the official language) * Unsafe water supplies, lack of sanitation (no clean, running water and soap), bottles cannot be kept sterile and formulas cannot be properly prepared 2. Convinced mothers that baby formula was indispensable. * Widespread misinformation about breast-feeding (hired women to pose as nurses) * False claims of the equivalence between breast milk and artificial substitutes (hospitals, doctors and health care professionals) * Devaluated women’s knowledge about breast-feeding in general. 3. Linked the product with a desirable notion—then giving a sample. * Advertisements and posters used idealistic images (often white children rather than the ethnicity of that country) suggesting that bottle-feeding is the modern, western way and the right way
* The company generally associated bottle-feeding with healthy babies (slogans, images, vitamins added to promote smarter babies)
Debate positions
Debates between Nestle and Baby Milk Action have always been avoided by the Nestle representatives, but pressure from the boycotts have forced them to respond to its critics since March 2001. Baby Milk Action suggest that the only reason Nestle is at the debates is because they hate the loss of sale resulted from the boycotts and the public’s awareness to the