Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
The primary good this caused was to Nestle and its stakeholders. Giving new mothers samples and providing no or low-cost supplies to health institutions, however, was not ethically wrong. These mothers and institutions received the benefit of free and low-cost supplies. It was then their choice to utilize these supplies.
And, lastly, the inadequate warning labels on the infant formula certainly did not provide the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people. In fact, it could be easily argued that it caused harm to the greatest number of people.
Once again, the only good this act served was directed at the stakeholders of Nestle. By not providing adequate warnings, mothers in developing nations, with less than modern kitchen facilities, thought it was safe to prepare and store the formula, encouraging them to use it, when a warning would have led many to reconsider its use.
Rawlsian Original Position and Nestle's Marketing Tactics:
In Rawls' Original Position, agents of the interests of individuals choose the principles under which their individuals will fare best.
These agents do not have knowledge of facts about their individuals, that would be morally irrelevant to the decision. This veil of ignorance includes information such as sex, age, and religion. With this information a non-issue, this eliminates negotiation between distinct individuals.
This would leave the agents, according to Rawls, to make their decision based upon two principals of justice. These include affirming the equality of basic liberties and the removal of social inequalities, unless removing them would make the situation worse.
Nestle's marketing tactics do not negatively affect an individuals basic liberties,...
nor, with this consideration, is it unethical to give free samples to mothers or supplies to health institutions, as it doesn't affect anyone's basic liberties, with the veil of ignorance. It could even be argued that with this veil, inadequate warning labels do not interfere with liberties. These tactics, however, do promote social injustice, negatively affecting those with limited information regarding the superiority of breastfeeding the most, and therefore are immoral.
For this reason, I would not want these tactics to be used in a society I was a part of. I would not want the social disparity increase, even if I wasn't negatively affected directly by the increase in social injustice, because social injustice negatively affects society in general. This further confirms the immorality of the tactics that were used.
Conclusion:
In the end, Nestle utilized several marketing tactics that are immoral in the light of Kant, Act Utilitarianism and Rawls theories of determining ethical behavior.
The marketing tactics should not be made universal, the would not be acceptable as reversible, and these tactics treat people as a mere means to an end. Act Utilitarianism would find these tactics as not providing the greatest good to the greatest number of people, with the exception of providing free samples to mothers and free to low-cost supplies to medical institutions. and, lastly, Rawls too would find them morally unacceptable, but only as they promote social injustice with those being worst-off being damaged the most.
The Ethical Considerations of Nestle's Marketing Tactics
These issues are discussed further below. Importance of Research in Relation to an Organization's Marketing Strategy and Tactics. In recent years, savvy marketers have increasingly been targeting discrete consumer segments through differentiated marketing techniques. According to the authors, "The distinctive nature of various consumer groups such as children, the elderly, women, and ethnic minorities has made them attractive market segments" (p. 364). Market segmentation and targeted marketing, though, are not
The workers had essentially no recourse if the Thai government was not willing to prosecute their case. The baby formula case does not likely result is illegal actions, but some of the marketing practices undertaken by Nestle can be considered unlawful in light of the World Health Organization's International Code of Marketing Breast Milk Substitutes. Nestle made a commitment to adhere to this code in their Infant Formula Charter. Yet,
Fox, R.F. (2001, November). Warning Advertising May Be Hazardous to Your Health: Ads Pose a Threat to Physical, Emotional, Social, and Cultural Well-Being. USA Today, Volume 130, Issue 2678, 62. The author discusses different types of advertising and promotion and finds ethical problems in the way many are handled, especially with reference to advertising and promoting goods and services to children. He cites the use of focus groups for toy companies
Nestle infant milk formula case, in the moral tradition of Kant's categorical imperative. Firstly, I will outline the facts surrounding the Nestle infant milk formula case, and then give a brief definition and description of the categorical imperative. Finally, I will use three main criteria to determine if Nestle's actions in the infant milk formula case can be considered moral, according to the categorical imperative. Before beginning the analysis of
Introduction Nestle is a multinational food and beverage company known for its wide range of products that cater to various consumer needs. The company operates in over 190 countries and has a strong presence in the global market. Nestle's corporate level strategies play a crucial role in ensuring its success and sustainability in the competitive business environment. One of Nestle's key corporate level strategies is diversification. The company has a diverse portfolio
Organization Behavior Ethics in Marketing Ethics of Marketing Ethics in Marketing In order to realize themselves as socially responsible corporate entities, business organizations have to maintain a sound ethical track record in every aspect of their business (Arnold 2009). They have to formulate their business policies and strategies in such a fashion that no societal values are exploited and no human being is harmed in any way (Crane & Matten 2007). It is essential