Words: 570
This is a tough question to answer because while many want to automatically take the anti-corporate stance, it must first be determined what the company should actually be responsible for. I think that in the Nestle example they should not be blamed for much of what they were blamed for In the media. For example, the diluting the formula to make It last longer Is something that the company would never advocate. And In the case of the Amazon tribe mixing It with dirty contaminated water, what did the tribe drink on a normal basis.
Even breastfeeding a child when drinking disease filled water seems like a terrible idea. I think that the bottom line in any of these situations is education, and the lack there of for the third world countries that the corporations in this discussion are selling too. Therefore, I think it is the responsibility of the company to provide education about the product, especially in these affected areas so that a media circus does not ensue.
However if one does, like in this example they have responsibilities (to the children as well as warehouses) such as finding ways to align themselves with baby oriented charity initiatives and making sure that employees are up to date on all new standards in specific regions(especially those previously affected. Lastly they have a responsibility to learn from past mistakes to ensure that they are not neglectful and act In a timely response for any future problems. It Is tough to get branded as baby killers and still try and market your product.
However Nestle still had some options at the time. They first would need to learn about specific regions culture to target consumers on a local bevel. Then they could have supported breast feeding initiatives, HIVE awareness campaigns (such as offering testing for pregnant mothers) and make sure that mothers understand, through education that formula is onto substitute for formula. Companies to avoid a situation like Nestles needs to protect itself from future issues. The best way to do this Is to be ahead of the game.
Although costly, having a department dedicated to Investigating potential future issues, especially humanitarian ones, allows a company to stop problems before they start. They also deed to put protocols In place to quickly and seriously handle a problem Like this In the future should It occur. Lastly, before entering a new market research must be done better. Learning about the local culture months before a product is launched means that there is time for education before goods are sold if that is needed.
Based on some of the definitions in Chapter 5, I would have to say that Nestle acted in an unethical way, albeit not completely intentionally. Some of the unethical parts of their actions include having untrained sales staff selling the products, free sample striation in poor areas where there is almost a 100 percent certainty they will be used, marketing to people who have little education and therefore are unqualified to give the product to the baby safely and finally having the product become associated with a healthier alternative to traditional breast feeding. . With the recent HIVE epidemic I think the advice to give Nestle Is simple. Keep supporting breast feeding and other programs that show good will towards third world countries.