Ethical Considerations of Nestle\'s Marketing

Ethical Considerations of Nestle's Marketing Tactics

Nestle's infant formula was originally developed in the mid-1860s as a means of saving the life of an infant who couldn't be breastfed. Since that time, Nestle has evolved into the third largest food company in the world. However, in the 1970s global concern surrounded the increased usage of formula, in place of superior breastfeeding. The media began to report what they saw as unethical marketing tactics. These included:

Formula company representatives dressed as health care professionals visiting Third World countries to promote the use of infant formula,

New mothers were given free samples of infant formula, during their hospital stay, health institutions were given free or low-cost supplies of formula, to routinize bottle feeding and discourage breast feeding,

And, product labels on infant formula failed to warn of potential risks of incorrect use ("Selling infant," year, p. 232).

The Infant Formula Action Coalition (INFACT) was formed focusing on Nestle. It charged Nestle with aggressive marketing campaigns that pressured mothers in Third World countries to switch to formula feeding, instead of breastfeeding. However, a shortage of reliable information weakened these charges. Nestle begrudgingly agreed to accept the World Health Organization's 'Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes'; however, an international boycott forced Nestle to make concessions. They agreed to note the superiority of breastfeeding in their educational material, alter warning labels, not give certain gifts to health professionals, and restrict the giving of low-cost supplies to health institutions ("Selling infant," year, p. 232-233). This paper evaluates the morality of these original tactics used by Nestle, using morality theories by Kant, Act Utilitarianism and Rawls.

Kant and the Ethical Evaluation of Nestle's Marketing Tactics:

When using Kant to evaluate Nestle's original marketing tactics, it becomes clear that they were not morally right. If Nestle's actions were to become a universal law of conduct, it would mean that all organizations could send representatives out into the field, pretending to be experts. This would mislead consumers into making uneducated decisions about products that could be life threatening. This would extend beyond businesses and be applicable to everyone. Therefore, if it were morally acceptable to give the impression that a person was someone they are not, this would mean that an individual could pretend to be a policeman and use this impression to his or her advantage.

Kant further surmises to be morally right, an act must be acceptable and reversible to everyone. Clearly not everyone would want to be on the receiving end of the sort of deception Nestle used to market their product, let alone the other applications of such a ruse.

The lack of appropriate warning levels would not be reversible as well. People, in general, want to know if a product is dangerous, or can become dangerous.

And, it violates Kant's rule of treating people as a mere means. All of the tactics Nestle used in question were developed simply to encourage mothers to utilize formula feeding in place of breastfeeding, even though breastfeeding was known to be superior. Hospitals and medical professionals too were utilized as mere means to getting formula into the hands of mothers who could be influenced by these entities.

Act Utilitarian Ethical Theory and Nestle's Marketing Tactics:

With Act Utilitarianism, one must consider the individual circumstances of the act. To be morally right, the tactics Nestle utilized must provide the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people. Posing as medical professionals does not provide the greatest amount of good, as it led mothers away from the superior practice of breastfeeding, by deception. 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, per say.

Therefore, in this light, it's not unethical for Nestle to have utilized representatives dressed as medical professionals. 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.