The Nestle Case

So this whole thing with Nestle baby formula and developing countries and tainted water has been going on for over thirty years now.

No matter what Nestle might do, I can't quite get my head around how they can possibly prevent tainted water from getting into the formula.

As much as I'd like to think it's possible, education is not the answer. They're dealing with people living in poverty, which implies a level of desperation. If you have the choice of whether to feed your baby possibly tainted formula or feed your baby nothing, I am pretty sure the choice is pretty clear.

And as much as I think they could theoretically supply pre-mixed formulas, that cost factor would have to be passed along (Nestle isn't a charity) and the people would likely end up either not buying it at all, or buying and diluting it with potentially tainted water.

And as much as I like the idea of them providing clean water, there's a cost to that as well, and Nestle isn't a market leader in the H2O business.

And as much as I like the idea of them investing in infrastructure, that really isn't where they have competitive capacity. (As a classmate of mine mentioned: when cars in a remote area of Venezuela start crashing because the country didn't invest in proper roads, nobody expects Ford to rebuild them.)

Thing is, I just don't see an alternate solution. Yes, the business has continued to exist there, so it's obviously profitable. But is it fair? Is it right? Does it promote long term social objectives? Is the corporation making a commitment to positive global citizenship?

I would venture to say no to all of these things.

So why the eff does Nestle keep selling its wares there?

Well, what about the mothers who are unable to breastfeed? What about babies who won't latch, who need alternate nutrition to thrive? What about the fact that illnesses like AIDS are rampant and can be passed through breastmilk? Where's the alternative? Isn't Nestle filling a legitimate need?

It seems to me that it's not Nestle's obligation to fix the structural problems, per se. The company shouldn't take a loss to provide its product. But it also seems like it's incredibly irresponsible to provide what is effectively half a product to consumers, knowing full well that they're unlikely to have the capacity to safely obtain the other half. And the risk inherent to the second half isn't just a bad taste or an allergic reaction -- it's toxicity and death.

So what can be done? I think the answer is a partnership of some sort, but I'm not sure what.