Global Media and the Nestle Boycott - Case Study Example

Outline GLOBAL MEDIA AND THE NESTLE BOYCOTT Introduction 2. Thesis 3. Case analysis a) The Nestle’ Boycott b) Validity of the claims c) A brief description of the opposing viewpoint 4. Conclusion 5. Works Cited GLOBAL MEDIA AND THE NESTLE BOYCOTT Introduction The topic global media and the Nestle boycott is a mass media and communication topic that is directed towards addressing how Nestle’ a company that distributes baby feeding products worldwide uses to reach its consumers. This helps the company enhance its relation towards its consumers and convince them to continue buying despite the claims of its unethical practices by world bodies. Nestle corporation is a world’s largest supplier of baby feeding products and has been blamed for the increased death of babies worldwide to a shocking percentage of over 40%. This blame is rooted from disputable claims that because of the baby products supply worldwide, parents specifically mothers have neglected their roles of breastfeeding their kids, which is a core requirement for the babies’ healthy growth within a certain age specifications (Frederick & Howard 57). Nestle boycott is a movement that has spread across the world since 1977 to date but the hearing of it spurs a lot of reactions and confusions. Confusions resulting come because majority of people are not able to understand what the boycott is all about and to what extent the boycott is still valid (Machin, David, and Theo 88). The worst is that much of the boycotters’ claims cannot be validated in terms of how they are true or not. From the global sources of information there is also very little if not scanty information that supports the claims of the boycotters. This is because freedom to information gives everyone a right to publish most so in the internet, which both the boycotters and Nestle are using to reach a majority of its consumer base, such information, does not need to be true. It is therefore difficult to choose what to believe with the contradicting information witnessed hence quite difficult to differentiate what is truth and what propaganda is. Thesis I am not openly opposed to the Nestle boycott on the basis of the advertisements presented aggressively by the boycotters while on the other hand I do not support Nestle’ corporation either. My concern is on the role of global advertisement to help support global communication. Case analysis The Nestle’ Boycott Nestles marketing through advertisement is based on the principle of consumer satisfaction and this is the foundation upon which its environmental marketing approach is based. The company claims that its environmental products claims through advertisement, promotional material and their packaging criteria are much in line with the regulatory frameworks of their jurisdictional areas of local operations and globally (Machin, David, and Theo 189). In fact, they claim that such strategies are based upon strong scientific evidence hence they are used in a strong and reasonable manner that cannot harm as claimed by the boycotters of the corporation. Given the current situation of the company where it is facing turbulent scenario of boycotts, advertisement is vital for the company in their both local operations and global arena and the strategies employed in spreading the communication will help Nestle reduce wastage of communication while enhancing publicity through relevant publicity material (Frederick & Howard 57). They conduct the same on the pretence of actions through precise targeting of marketing activities. Nestle’ has expressed its full commitment towards contributing to good nutrition most so concerning children feeding hence a healthy lifestyle. The company is as well adequately aware of the arising incidents of obesity most so among the children worldwide and rampantly in developing countries where the effect is experience in a double-edged manner i.e. the occurrence of over and under nutrition (McPhail & Thomas 33). Such social problems are on the rise and world health organization has reported death of over 1.5 million infants worldwide annually. The boycotters claim on the global advertising and information spread tools alike search engines, the internet, face book and twitter plus many more that the deaths a more in developing countries and specifically in infants due to Nestlé’s promotion of infant formula over the much healthy breast milk which results into illnesses and deaths because of the following. One, the formula has to be mixed with water, which is a scarce and contaminated commodity in developing countries making the infants vulnerable towards disease. Furthermore, the illiteracy levels in the developing countries leaves the mothers with less or no idea on the ways to sanitize the feeding bottles, this is also partly because the mothers are not able to read and write simple English. Secondly, in developing countries even if then mothers could understand the directions, they are not able to undertake the cases as they do not possess the means to boil or lighting systems to enhance sterilization at night. The other impact is the fact that many poor mothers mixed the formula powder in wrong mixtures to make it last longer, this is not healthy for the infants, as it will not give them adequate nutrient requirements for the body (Nickel & Herman 359). Lastly, the boycotters claim that there are quite a number of benefits that lack form the formula which is intensively circulated in the market due to the companies’ strong advertisement tools. Biology dictates that nutrients from food substances are normally passed to the baby alongside the antibodies as the hormones are released into the mothers’ body; this makes breastfed babies be much protected from a number of illnesses. The boycotters have fiercely intensified their worldwide campaigns claiming that the formula from Nestle’ denies infants a chance to a healthy development of their brains and nerves, this is due to the fact that breast milk contains nutrients necessary for the development of these body parts. The separation of baby and mother also denies the baby the much-needed strong bond of mother to child. Other social problem is that fertility is not of the mothers hence uncontrolled births hence high birth rates of mothers in developing countries (McPhail & Thomas 336). According to The New Internationalist (2006), The UK Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) issued a negative ruling prohibiting Nestle from continued advertisement of their infant formula claiming their production and distribution were unethical and that they did not conform to the Authorities regulatory standards. Nestle on the other hand in an anti-boycott advertisement responded by claiming that it markets the infant formula ethically and very responsibly. Though the advertisements by the company were strong enough, ASA could not support their claims as the campaigns by the baby milk action were more valid and convincing due to the evidence, Nestle could not support their claims. IBFAN, UNICEF and Nestle were invited by the European Parliament in the month of November 2000 for them to present the evidence for the claims before a public hearing of the development and corporation committee. Both IBFAN and UNICEF presented their evidence accurately while the organizations were able to note the failure of Nestle’ to present their policies clearly with respect to the World Health Standards of the World Health assembly Resolutions (Nickel & Herman 489). Towards this meeting, Nestle’ refused to honor the invitation to attend the meeting presenting a vague reasoning of having a busy schedule. Validity of the claims The question as to whether what the boycotters’ claims are true, Nestle have employed a rigorous PR machinery to dilute the claims, or the boycotters are over reacting is still mystery (Rooy & Alison 196). Nestle’ claims that all the problems regarding the formula milk were resolved long time ago, the boycotter organizations like the baby milk Action Group claim otherwise. They support their claim that Nestle’ Strategy is fond of such ways of dealing with accusations against them, that is they admit any problems that are long overdue claiming it stopped and that it will never happen anymore. From such form of PR machine, the food agency is able to even make more sales worldwide without correcting the defaults by complying to The International Code of Marketing of Breast milk substitute. WHO and UNICEF prepared the codes, though it is not legally binding, it helps protect consumers from unscrupulous individuals and organizations as it have much moral and political weight. The baby action group that facilitates the boycotts claim that they have evidence to show that Nestle’ is disregarding this code and that it does this through negative global advertisement like the inclusion of an alleged idealizing formula i.e. the use of the words “New Gold Standards” on the packages of their products. They go further to say in the adverts that they protect babies, stops diarrhea, and provide promotional information to healthcare professionals (Nickel & Herman 130-143). According to Food & development. Ottawa (2005), the international code of marketing of which Nestle’ corporation is claimed to be going against in terms of advertisements states among others that. The formula milk should not be advertised in forms that are likely to interfere with the protection and promotion of breastfeeding. Within the scope of this code, producers are not allowed to provide directly or indirectly samples of the products to pregnant women, mothers or the members of their families. That the producers should not provide any gifts of articles which are geared towards promoting the products like use of breast milk substitutes and bottle feeding to pregnant mothers and young children. The code further states that there is no marketing officer of the products allowed to come into contact with pregnant women and the infants or their families and information provided to the concerned parties should provide the exact information on the actual use of the products to prevent misleading which may discourage breast feeding (Rooy & Alison 196). In addition, pictures of infants should not appear anywhere on the containers of the products that may provide an idea of the use of such products but instead they should formulate information identifying the products and the procedure of their preparation as a breast feeding substitute. Furthermore, the information provided to healthcare providers by the producers should only contain scientific and factual matters and avoid creating a belief that bottle-feeding is superior to breast-feeding (Thomas & McPhail 94). A brief description of the opposing viewpoint Nestle’ corporation is though opposed to the viewpoint by highly protecting their advertisement campaigns as being very much within the laws governing product promotion. The company argues that they are committed to protecting life and provision of healthy food for the sake of a healthy lifestyle (Wheelwright 93). They argue that the causes of death in infants in developing countries is largely cause by a range of factors like physical activity, the curriculum in schools and genetically make up of an individual. This is a supposed to the claims of Nongovernmental organizations like the ones ganging up to form a boycott against the corporation’s products. Furthermore, Nestle argue that advertisement contributes very little when it comes to the factors that would determine the food that the mothers give their kids, it is the responsibility of the mothers to feed their babies healthily and should be charged with negligence if they cannot breast feed their children on pretence that Nestle’ has provided options. This standpoint exonerates Nestle from the blame that it has caused many deaths of infants. They present the fact that they are majorly involved in product promotion to help them in increasing the sales of their products worldwide without targeting any individual group in the societal makeup (Thomas & McPhail 113). Nestle’ advocates for the principles concerning appropriate communication to their consumers since the establishment of their corporate business principles, which are reviewed frequently (Kamalipour & Yahya 296). In its global promotion of its products, Nestle’ is endowed with the responsibility of dealing responsibly with the advertisements directed towards promoting the products to children and they are well placed to influence this. As indicated in the Nestle website, their take is adversely opposed to the Baby Action Group since it is evident that they agree with the WHO and UNICEF that breast feeding is the best and most natural food for the infant. Nestle’ in their global campaigns claim to always be recommending extensive breastfeeding to infants for the first six months which should thereafter be followed with the appropriate substitute mixed with breast feeding up to at least two years. As opposed to the view of Baby Action Group that they publish babies’ pictures on the packages of the products, Nestle’ claim is that that on the infant nutrition products, they publish recommendation features of how to use the products and at what ages of the infants. Alongside this, they also distribute educational materials to healthcare professionals supporting the need for thorough breastfeeding (Wheelwright 123). Conclusion Just like my thesis statement, my conclusion will not be biased but rational. There is no side that deserves to be given all the credits as error is there to human. On one side, the Baby Action Group has to realize the extent to which Nestle has played to salvage children by providing baby care products in the developing countries in the global arena. It is evident that these countries very rare exclusive breastfeeding plans for kids up to six months as required with most substitutes being water or other fluids, which are most of the time contaminated and dangerous. Nestle’ realized that breastfeeding in developed countries start abnormally early hence saw the need to provide affordable baby care alternatives instead of the allowing these people to use these inappropriate means. The Baby Action group also has a point by claiming that the company at time provides inadequate breast milk substitutes leading to stunted growth in infants, underweight, which increases infant mortality. The organization is not wrong to act as a regulator since this will only trickle down to the benefit of the customers or clients who are the infants and the pregnant. Nestle’ should not have conclusively rejected the four-point plan if they stood for all that is entailed in their plan according to their website. The four-point plan was not meant to harm the organization but help call off the international Boycott on the Nestle Products. The Baby Group Should also not act stringently towards the Nestle corporation (Kamalipour & Yahya 243). Works Cited Food & development. Ottawa: CUSO, 2005. Print. Frederick, Howard H. Global communication & international relations. Belmont, Calif: Wadsworth Pub. Co. 2003. Print. Kamalipour, Yahya R. Global communication. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth / Thomson Learning, 2002. Print. Machin, D, D David, and Theo Van Leeuwen. Global Media Discourse: A Critical Introduction. Naperville, Ill.: Routledge, 2007. Print. McPhail, Thomas L. Global communication: theories, stakeholders, and trends. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 2002. Print. Nickel, Herman. Crusade against the corporation: churches and the Nestle boycott. Washington: Ethics and Public Policy Center, Georgetown University, 2000. Print. Rooy, Alison Van. The global legitimacy game Civil society, globalization and protest. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004. Print. The New Internationalist. Oxford: New Internationalist October 2006. Print. Thomas L, McPhail. Global Communication: Theories, Stakeholders, and Trends. New York: Wiley-Blackwell, 2008. Print. Wheelwright, E. L. Consumers, transnational corporations, and development. Sydney: Transnational Corporations Research Project, University of Sydney, 2006. Print. Read More