In the case of “Selling Infant Formula Abroad” the Nestle Corporation and the Infant
Formula Action Coalition (INFACT) battle on the issue of aggressive marketing techniques.
Here, a moral question arises: Should companies be free to market their products as aggressively
as they want even if it could potentially harm the consumers?
The Nestle Corporation is viewed by some as a noble company due to its development of
infant formula designed to save the lives of infants incapable of breast feeding. Nestle has a clear
respect for life with its association with relief organizations such as the International Red Cross,
which has used the formula to feed thousands of staving infants in refugee camps.1 Despite all
this good, some organizations are blaming Nestle for contributing to high infant-mortality rates,
attempting to shut down their marketing strategies. However, this violates equity/ justice, Nestle
has the right to free trade and free marketing. Organizations such as the World Health
Organization (WHO) have no business telling private business how to sell its products.2
Although not required, Nestle still supported the Code of Marketing of Breast milk Substitutes
making many adjustments to its marketing strategies. Nestlé’s cooperation with INFACT and
WHO ensured the companies sustainability by ending detrimental boycotts against their products
and by strengthening customer relationships. However, while considering the burden/benefit
factor Nestle made the decision to continue sending free supplies of their formula to hospitals.
Mothers who receive free samples are far more likely to bottle-feed than those who do not.3 The
effectiveness of free samples guarantees more customers and therefore more profit. Nestle
expresses mixed schools of ethics; although it is willing to make adjustments to their means, the
end consequence is still more important.
1
William Shaw, Business Ethics (New York: Thomson Wadsworth, 2005) 174.
Ibid, 175.
3
Ibid
2
From the perspective of INFACT, Nestle does not take in consideration respect for life.
The Nestle Corporation contributes to high infant-mortality rates by persuading mothers in
underdeveloped countries to switch from breast feeding to bottle feeding. The Caribbean Food
and Nutrition Institute claims that millions of infants suffered and died as a result of bottle
feeding.4 Nestlé’s promotional practices overlooked the fact that Third World mothers who
cannot nurse are also more likely to be subject to the economic factors that make bottle feeding
risky5 such as proper storage procedures. It is necessary for Nestle to practice nonmaleficence;
marketing techniques should promote the product as well as inform consumers about possible
health risks. Although not successful in convincing the United States to support the Code of
Marketing of Breast milk Substitutes, INFACT was still able to reach an agreement with Nestle
who promised to make many drastic changes to promotional practices. However, four years later
after all boycotts had come to an end Nestle began to violate the code and equity/ justice by
continuing to dump free samples in hospitals.
Companies do have the right to free speech and free trade, therefore ensuring free
marketing. But when does marketing push its limits into becoming unethical? What constitutes
as overaggressive marketing? Perhaps regulations on marketing are necessary. Nestle should
practice nonmaleficence and be required to include labels on their products informing consumers
about potential dangers even at the risk of profit lose. Promotional practices should be made
transparent to the public. How effective is sending representatives of formula companies falsely
dressed as health care professionals to visit villages to promote the use of infant formula after the
public is aware of it? Lastly, equity/justice must be enforced with strict consequences if any
marketing codes are to be agreed upon.
4
5
Ibid, 175.
Ibid