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.
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 risky[5] 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.
[1] William Shaw, Business Ethics (New York: Thomson Wadsworth, 2005) 174.
[2] Ibid, 175.
[3] Ibid
[4] Ibid, 175.
[5] Ibid