SULAIMAN FAROOQ

Q. Was and is Nestlé’s and the other IFM members' marketing of infant formula 'unethical and
immoral'

Yes they were basically testing the credibility and potential of the infant formula on third world
country’s families first. Changing the nature’s norm will of course be met with ethical and moral
judgements, one cannot escape it. These ethical and moral questions are usually open ended and
subjective. Encouraging mothers to give up the emotional and natural bond which is created by breast
feeding between the infant and her mother definitely rises questions of ethics and morals.

Q. Is it the case that ethical standards should be the responsibility of organizations such as WHO and
UNESCO, and that the sole responsibility of firms is to work within the bounds set?

Yes, definitely. Maintaining ethical standards of corporations should be one the main functions of such
organisations. They must make sure that the corporations are operating within the ethical boundaries.
Even though most firms undertake the ethics of their actions but it is usually not their ‘sole’
responsibility. However, ideally it should be. Secondly, it can be difficult to set ethical standards
globally as the standards may very culture to culture where it can get subjective.

Q. Is Nestle just unlucky or did its actions precipitate its being singled out by activists? Is the
activists' focus on Nestle unjust and itself dangerous? What accounts for Nestlé’s continuing in the
infant formula market despite the protests.

Nestle being the biggest food company of the world inevitably will come under heavy scrutiny and
criticism. When a company stacks up billions in revenue every year, it does not take much to criticise
it. I don’t see the activists being unjust on nestle whose aim is to make processed powdered milk for
feeding infants a norm in the society. Some may say it goes against our very nature. It takes away
the emotional bond between a mother and her child. It can be argued that it is Nestlé’s another
attempt to exploit the families of third world countries for satisfy their own interests. Use third world
families as an experiment ground for launching their new products. Being a mega name in the market
means you can get away with things which otherwise can lead to serious legal action. Secondly, these
infant formulas are WHO and UNESCO approved so nestle are not legally obligated to stop selling
infant formulas because of some mere protests. Nestle also won a defamation case against the
protests.

Q. Did Nestles benefit from confronting the activists directly in court and winning? Should firms ever
confront activists directly? What other forms of action are available to the company? Should firms
withdraw from legitimate markets because of the justified or unjustified actions of pressure groups?

Of course it helps to confront your opponents in court and legally win over them. It also gives out a
strong official message to the world that we are right and nothing we are doing is wrong. However it
did ruin Nestlé’s PR as they were exposed out in the open at the court. Going to the court meant that
imagine of nestle had been damaged so much that they had to go to the court. Firms should confront
activists because one activism against something catches fire, it can very much be damaging for the
receiver. If they have a strong hold in the market and have all the legal backing, they should stay
rooted.

Q. The WHO code is a recommendation to government. Is it Nestles responsibility to operate according

to the national legislation of any given country, or to follow WHO's recommendations to that country?
Do international bodies setting international standards, such as WHO and UNICEF, have a moral
responsibility to make those standards clearly understood by all parties and to demand action by
national governments to enact them?

Nestle has to operate according to the national legislation of the country otherwise it will face legal
actions. If the WHO’s recommendations goes against a country’s legislation where the firm is
operating then the firm will be legally bound not to follow the WHO’s recommendations. However, it is
indeed true that international standards, such as WHO and UNICEF, have a moral responsibility to
make those standards clearly understood by all parties and to demand action by national governments
to enact them. This is because a nation’s legislation sometimes overlooks the welfare of the people in
order to maximise the profits through such firms. They overlook the moral and ethical side of their
regulations so that they can boost up the economy and attract other MC firms to their business
friendly policies. International organisations such as WHO and UNICEF whose sole purpose is to
promote global health has to take up ethically and morally regulated policies and implement them
universally, because if such globally renowned international organisations do not take up such
responsibilities then surely no one will. Although there will be some fundamental policies which will
maintain ethical and moral standards globally but some policies must vary country to country
according to their norms and cultures.

Q. How should Nestle respond to the threats from the General Synod in 1994V Since Nestle claimed
sales increased after the Nescafe boycott in 1991, should they just ignore the problem?

It would be better to just initially ignore it, given the threats has had no impact on the sales. But if the
threats keep pouring in then the company might have to listen because it may get very serious as the
threat is coming from a powerful source, the Church.