Nestlé Baby Formula Controversy: Marketing Ethics and PVOs
This paper examines the Nestlé baby formula controversy, tracing its origins from the 1974 publication of "The Baby Killer" pamphlet through a decade-long international consumer boycott and the eventual formulation of the WHO International Code of Marketing of Breast Milk Substitutes. The paper analyzes how private voluntary organizations (PVOs) and advocacy groups successfully pressured Nestlé to reform its infant formula marketing practices in Third World countries, and reflects on how the controversy permanently reshaped relationships among multinational corporations, governments, international agencies, and civil society. The paper also reviews the WHO Code's ten key provisions and notes that disputes over Nestlé's compliance continued well into the early 2000s.
- Introduction: The Baby Killer Pamphlet: Origins of controversy in 1974 activist pamphlet
- From Europe to the United States: The Boycott Spreads: Boycott escalates from Europe to America
- Victories of Private Voluntary Organizations: PVOs secure Kennedy hearings and WHO code
- The WHO International Code of Marketing: Ten-point WHO breast milk substitute marketing rules
- Nestlé's Ongoing Controversy: Writers protest Nestlé sponsorship in early 2000s
- Conclusion: Corporate Accountability and Civil Society: PVOs reshape multinational corporate accountability globally
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Provides a clear chronological narrative that traces a complex, multi-decade controversy in a logically ordered and accessible way.
- Balances factual history with analysis, showing not just what happened but why it mattered—particularly the lasting impact on relationships between corporations, PVOs, and international agencies.
- Incorporates the WHO's ten-point International Code verbatim, grounding abstract arguments in concrete regulatory standards.
- Demonstrates awareness of ongoing relevance by including a post-2000 update, showing the controversy did not end with the 1984 boycott resolution.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper uses a case study approach to illustrate a broader theoretical point: that private voluntary organizations can fundamentally alter the sociopolitical environment in which multinational corporations operate. Rather than simply narrating events, it frames the boycott outcome as a structural shift in international business accountability, citing a peer-reviewed journal source to anchor the argument.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with the origin of the controversy, moves through escalation (European to American boycott), then covers key advocacy victories, presents the WHO Code as the primary regulatory outcome, revisits the controversy in the early 2000s, and closes with a reflection on the lasting significance of civil-society pressure on global corporate behavior. This arc moves from event to consequence to broader implication.
Introduction: The Baby Killer Pamphlet
The story of the Nestlé baby formula controversy begins almost three decades ago with the publication of a pamphlet called "The Baby Killer" in 1974 by Mike Muller and War on Want, a London-based activist group concerned with problems of the developing world (Akhter 1994). The pamphlet claimed that Third World babies were dying because their mothers were feeding them infant formula that was being marketed by multinationals such as Nestlé of Switzerland and the United Kingdom's Cow and Gate (Akhter 1994). The aftermath of the publication led to an international crisis for Nestlé.
The pamphlet claimed that the infant deaths were due to irresponsible marketing of infant formula, especially the "use of medically unqualified sales girls, the distribution of free samples, and the association of bottle-feeding with healthy babies to promote the use of infant formula by mothers" who should have been breastfeeding their babies rather than bottle-feeding them (Akhter 1994).
Before "The Baby Killer" was published, the issue of marketing infant formula to Third World countries had not attracted the attention of developed economies. However, the pamphlet raised public awareness, and in 1974 the Third World Action Group (TWAG) translated the pamphlet into German and republished it under the new title, "Nestlé Kills Babies" (Akhter 1994).
From Europe to the United States: The Boycott Spreads
Nestlé swiftly responded by suing everyone involved with the translation and publication, and while it won a libel case against TWAG, the media and public attention moved an unknown group to center stage and backfired on Nestlé by creating a public relations nightmare (Akhter 1994). The infant formula controversy quickly spread from Europe to the United States, where the Infant Formula Action Coalition (INFACT), protesting the marketing of infant formula in the Third World, issued a consumer boycott of all Nestlé products on July 4, 1977 (Akhter 1994). Soon, other organizations such as the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility (ICCR) joined the controversy by advocating that "multinationals should curb their infant formula promotions in Third World countries" (Akhter 1994).
The involvement of these private voluntary organizations (PVOs) in the Nestlé boycott set about a chain of events that changed the relationships "between corporations, PVOs, governments, and international agencies" (Akhter 1994).
Victories of Private Voluntary Organizations
The PVOs succeeded in two key victories. First, they were able to convince Senator Edward Kennedy to hold a meeting to discuss the issue. Second, they "persuaded the World Health Organization to formulate an international code of marketing of infant formula" (Akhter 1994). The boycott ended after ten years of negotiations and a joint announcement on October 4, 1984 by Nestlé and the International Nestlé Boycott Committee (INBC) (Akhter 1994).
The Nestlé controversy is significant because, prior to this crisis, private voluntary organizations and international agencies posed little influence on business activities. However, in the wake of this controversy, these groups "became an integral part of the new sociopolitical environment, influencing and influenced by business activities" and demonstrated how such groups can affect international business (Akhter 1994). These private voluntary organizations managed effective campaigns and united public support by focusing on the moral issue rather than scientific data, by creating victims and culprits, and thus placing Nestlé on the defensive (Akhter 1994). Nestlé, on the other hand, committed one blunder after the next, beginning with the lawsuit against TWAG and by presenting a weak defense at the Kennedy hearings, only to recover from its public relations mire when it "established the new subsidiary, Nestlé Coordination Center for Nutrition (NCCN), to deal exclusively with the crisis" (Akhter 1994).
The WHO International Code of Marketing
According to the International Code of Marketing of Breast Milk Substitutes, companies must comply with the following provisions (Philipp, O'Brien 2001):
1. No advertising of breast milk substitutes to families.
2. No free samples or supplies in the health care system.
3. No promotion of products through health care facilities, including no free or low-cost formula.
4. No contact between marketing personnel and mothers.
5. No gifts or personal samples to health workers.
6. No words or pictures idealizing artificial feeding, including pictures of infants, on the labels of the product.
7. Information to health workers should be scientific and factual only.
8. All information on artificial feeding, including labels, should explain the benefits of breastfeeding and the costs and hazards associated with artificial feeding.
9. Unsuitable products should not be promoted for babies.
10. All products should be of a high quality and take account of the climate and storage conditions of the country where they are used (Philipp, O'Brien 2001).
Conclusion: Corporate Accountability and Civil Society
The Nestlé baby formula controversy remains a reminder that even in today's economy a company can still suffer financial loss and find itself swallowed in a public relations nightmare due to the strength and unrelenting efforts of special interest groups and private voluntary organizations (Akhter 1994). These forces, comprised of grassroots groups and international organizations, have become "active constituents of the new international sociopolitical environment, including international business activities," and show signs of becoming even more powerful as watchdogs for Third World countries in the years to come (Akhter 1994).
Works Cited
Akhter, Syed H. "Multinational Corporations and the Impact of Public Advocacy on Corporate Strategy: Nestle and the Infant Formula Controversy." Journal of International Business Studies. September 22, 1994.
Leeman, Sue. "Two Writers Pull Out of Festival Over Nestle Sponsorship." AP Worldstream. May 27, 2002.
Philipp, Barbara L.; O'Brien, Susan. "Physicians and Breastfeeding Promotion in the United States: A Call for Action." Pediatrics. March 01, 2001.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.