Nestle: a baby killer? This case examines how decisions made by Nestle regarding the company's marketing of infant formula milk, ironically a vital health resource for some mothers, have been perceived as unethical by some, leading to the longest consumer boycott campaign in history. No one argues that Nestle is the only company to have been involved in less-than-perfect practices in developing countries. In 2006, when the UK government launched a new scheme, Healthy Start, to replace the Welfare Food Scheme, two of the biggest producers of formula in Britain - Cow & Gate and Heinz - tried to use it as a marketing opportunity. Cow & Gate produced adverts saying its baby milk was 'closest to breast milk,' a claim which is disallowed under the WHO code, until the Department of Health clamped down on them; and Heinz published a graph suggesting its formula was close to breast milk and better than competing brands. Both companies were not only violating the code but also UK legislation. The marketing message was that formula was as healthy as breast milk - even though in some countries women had no access to clean water to mix up the formula with and no means to sterilize bottles. In some instances, cans of formula were being sold with the instructions in the wrong language for the women being targeted.
So why target Nestle? Ibfan and the campaigning group Baby Milk Action say they target the company because they claim it has violated the code more than any other single company worldwide, and also that - as a market leader - it should be setting an example.
These allegations first came to prominence in the late 1970s, in a notorious court case. The charity War on Want had published a pamphlet called 'The Baby Killer' in 1974. Nestle's response to the alleged violations has tended to rely on denial arguments about different interpretations of the code and blaming certain employees. Although it has admitted to making mistakes in the past, the company maintains that it has always abided by the WHO code. Nestle is tight-lipped about the effect of the boycott on its sales and public image. But 30 years on, feelings continue to run high. Users of a parenting website, Netmums, took its founders to task after the site agreed a sponsorship deal with Nestle, and demonstrators continue to gather outside the company's HQ for a show of strength in favor of a cause that refuses to go away.
The following year, 1977, saw the start of calls for a boycott of all Nestle products in the US. The boycott quickly spread to Europe. In 1981, as a result of the boycott, the World Health Assembly (the decision-making body for WHO) adopted the International Code of Marketing of Breast Milk Substitutes, calling it 'a minimum requirement to be adopted in its entirety.' In 1984, Nestle agreed to implement the code, and the boycott was officially suspended by the groups who had done most to promote it.
1. What do you think the public's perception is of Nestle? How was this formed? Have shortcuts been used to judge Nestle? (Ibfan)
2. Review the section on common biases and errors in decision making. Which of these biases and errors are relevant to Nestle and why?
