Nestle Gets It Right
The last thing I knew about Nestle was it tried hard to convince mothers in the developing world that its milk was better than their milk. When I received an invitation to a high level UN conference on nutrition jointly sponsored by Nestle, the Swiss Mission to the UN, and the UN Office for Partnerships I was aghast. More out of morbid curiosity than anything else, I accepted.
Nestle chairman Peter Brabeck-Letmathe set the table when he recounted a moment at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland in which the actress Sharon Stone took the mike at one of the sessions and exhorted the captains of industry sitting in the audience to "give something back" by pledging donations for philanthropic causes. According to Mr. Brabeck, she collected pledges of a million dollars in a few minutes.
As he recounted the moment to us, he became upset at the thought that he should feel obligated to give something back because he didn't think Nestle had taken anything away. Over the next few years, with the help of two Harvard professors, he began to codify Nestle's interactions with its various constituencies in order to find that magical balance that would allow the company to thrive in harmony with everyone's best interests. They called it "creating shared value," an advancement on the concept of corporate social responsibility. This was not what I expected to hear.
As Brabeck sees it, this shared value exists at all stages of the value chain starting with the smallest stakeholder farmers whose crops are purchased, and extending upward to consumers. Critics can certainly make the argument that Brabeck falls short of the classic definition of a saint, and that Nestle's operations are inherently biased toward its own need to fulfill its primary responsibility to shareholders: Maximizing profitability. Such is the challenge of any company in a capitalist economy. But, Brabeck made the point that within the structure of inherently competing interests exists the potential for all parties to find common ground. The use of water, for instance, is high on the company's list of critical issues that challenge it every day.
Their website reports a 28% reduction in "water withdrawal" which would seem to demonstrate a commitment to sustainability. It doesn't indicate if the remaining 72% of water usage comes at too great an expense of any of the essential needs of the communities dependent on those water sources, but let's give them the benefit of the doubt for the moment.
Giving the benefit of the doubt to any corporate behemoth takes a leap of faith that is rarely justified. But, even the most cynical skeptic is going to have to admit, if only grudgingly, that Nestle has taken specific and measurable steps to achieve sustainable, shared value. It quantifies its behavior with performance measurements versus the 10 UN Global Compact Principals on human rights, labor, the environment, and corruption. Two years ago it even sponsored a UNGC Leader's Summit. Its statistical evaluations, however, are now 18 months old. It's time for them to be updated.
With Nestle now appearing to be holding its own feet to the fire it's time to wipe clean the stigma of past behavior. As Oscar Wilde once said, "Every saint has a past, every sinner has a future."
P.S. As far as Peter Brabeck knows, none of the million dollars pledged to Sharon Stone was ever paid.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
They tried to lie to Americans that their products were recalled due to "salmonella", when the truth is it was e-coli.
This is up there with Con-Agra finding salmonella in their pot pies, but keeping them on store shelves and just advising people to "cook thoroughly".
I'm sorry, but Nestle's "shared value" report is largely greenwash - at least to those of us dealing with their somewhat predatory presence in small rural communities where they bottle their spring water.
As company, they use divisive, heavy-handed tactics (both personal and legal) to split towns and squelch opposition. In McCloud, CA, they tried to intimidate opponents of the proposed bottling plant by subpoenaing their personal financial records, and in Fryeburg, ME, they sued the town five times (one suit, four appeals) trying to force a a 24/7 truck loading station into a residentially zoned area.
They finally found the legal loophole they were looking for.
These are just two of a long list of similar circumstances, and for a reporter (even a Huffington Post writer) to fall for the high-level greenwashing from one of the world's most-boycotted corporations is disappointing at best.
After all, it's what happens on the ground that counts, and Nestle's record - both in the bottled water arena and in the infant formula area (still) is shameful.
in my book, a company that 'gets it right' is NOT one that is a powerful proponent and user of GMO frankenfoods, the way that Nestle is.
supporting local farmers does not entail forcing them to use GMO seed that they can only legally use once. this means that the farmers MUST buy seed every year instead of using seed they've produced themselves.
supporting the health of your customers does not involve GMO technology.
supporting the health of the planet would NOT involve in contaminating the genestock of agricultural crops with GMO genes.
See Dan Silverstein's Profile
Your passion is admirable, but your categorical dismissal of GMOs leaves a lot to be desired. I'm going to check with some people who are far more astute in this field than I, but in the interim let me excerpt for you a section of an Inter Press News Service story that appears on the AGRA website:
"Bill Gates, whose foundation supports AGRA, also funds several other agricultural initiatives in Africa developing GM crops. AGRA falls under the Gates Foundation's Global Development Program, whose senior programme officer is Dr. Robert Horsch - an employee of biotech giant Monsanto for 25 years and part of a team that developed Roundup Ready GM crops.
"Earlier this year, alarm bells were raised in the anti-GM camp when AGRA signed a five-year agreement with the Earth Institute at New York's Columbia University, which is headed by Jeff Sachs, an outspoken and avid supporter of GMOs.
"Although AGRA claims that it does not make use of GMO seed, it is careful not to take a principled position on this contentious topic, thus leaving the door open to incorporate these into the plan at some future stage", says Siviwe Mdoda, coordinator of TCOE’s Land Rights Programme.
-------------------------------------------------
Here is the link to the entire story: http://www.agra-alliance.org/content/news/detail/958/
I don't want to become an apologist for Nestle, but intemperate bashing of their shared value initiative doesn't help. If it's good enough for Jeffrey Sachs, it's good enough for me.
See Dan Silverstein's Profile
I told you I would find experts to respond to your categorical dismissal of GMOs and here is the first of them. I suggest you read about Africa Harvest;s committment to participating in the fight to end chronic hunger on their website at: http://africaharvest.org/technologies
Your condemnation is not supported by factual testing and data that indicates GMO technology may hold the key to producing enough incremental crop yield to lift many impoverished people at least to the level of food security.
as far as kicking the bottled water habit , if you have ever had a friend or relative suffering from kidney stones and has a doctor worth his weight, you know that consuming 2 to 3 32 oz. bottles of water aday with lemon juice in them is mandatory to slowing down the formation and speeding up the elimination of the stones. We can't find large enough non-plastic bottles that can be used everysingle day plus it must be distilled water, comes in large plastic bottles, so some of us don't have many choices. With that said Dan Silversteins article was brilliant, as he.
Nestlé may be a so-called "prominent" participant in the UN Global Compact, but its track record is certainly not undisputed.
A couple of weeks ago a group called Nestlé Critics submitted a report in which it urged the Global Compact Office to exclude Nestlé from the Compact. The campaigners argue that the company commits systematic abuses and that it brings the Compact "into disrepute".
Nestlé Critics allege that Nestlé's Communications on Progress are misleading and that the company uses its participation in the Compact to divert criticism so that abuses of human rights and environmental standards can continue.
More details on the complaint are available here: http://vl.am/9m4.
See Dan Silverstein's Profile
Thanks for responding.
In my blog comment I didn't go into the substance of the sessions, but they were as intellectually stimulating as any meeting I have ever been to; comprised of panel discussions which drew the participation of leading experts from thoughout the world in various nutritional disciplines.
With the chairman, president and vice president of public affairs of Nestle sitting in the front row the panelists talked frankly about such things as the difficulty in marketing food that (in this order) A) doesn't kill you, B) won't shorten your lifespan, C) is nutritious enough to not be considered empty calories, and D) tastes good enough so it would actually be purchased. Nestle didn't win every one of the heated exchanges, but it was clear that the message was getting through.
During a break I walked over to one of the Harvard professors who collaborated over several years with Mr. Brabeck in developing the idea of creating shared value. He was dressed in faded black jeans, an open shirt and running shoes. Just to be a smart ass I asked him "Why are you dressed like that?" "Because I can," was all he said, and we both laughed. This isn't a guy who shills for anyone.
If this was some kind of ruse, or if Nestle has been gaming the UN Global Compact statistics they're very good at it. And the people running the UNGC are very stupid.
HuffPost's Pick
Nestle does not bottle tap water, only spring water. Coke and Pepsi bottle tap water.
Not all people can drink the water that comes out of their tap. I have a well and wouldn't drink that water if you paid me. I also don't drink soda. Instead of buying soda, I buy spring water to drink, a healthier choice. Many of the public water systems are getting old and may not be as safe as you think.
If there were no options to purchase a bottle of water when you are out , think of all the more soda that would be consumed, a very unhealthy choice.
Regarding recycling, a plastic bottle can be recycled many times over. It's consumers who don't recycle the bottle. They either throw it in the garbage or worse, drop it on the ground. I would read more on the Nestle Water website about their stepped up efforts to not only use less plastic but also to step up the campaign to get people to recycle. Recycling a bottle is no different than recycling a soda can.
And if the bottled water companies stopped bottling water, what would happen when catastrophes like Hurrican Katrina occurred and no one had drinking water? Nestle donates a lot of bottled water to these emergency situations.
It's easy to say stop bottling water and drink from the tap and that water companies are bad but maybe you should think outside the box at exactly what you are asking for.
I'm glad to see that Nestle is doing *something* remotely socially responsible. But if they were truly socially responsible, wouldn't they stop bottling our tap water and selling it back to us at over 1,500 times the price? They're pumping water at a lesser rate, but that still doesn't change how many plastic water bottles end up in landfills. I think we should all just kick the bottled water habit all together and put our trust back in our public water systems. I don't think Nestle would suffer too much if they stopped bottling water.
Kick the habit and take the pledge to Think Outside the Bottle: http://www.stopcorporateabuse.org/water-campaign
Peace
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
