Investigación secundaria

Nestle Case

Any company has the responsibility to inform their customers about the consequences of consuming their product even though these consequences are negative. Alsothey have to give all the instructions of how to consume it and how is the right form to do it. In this case, Nestle should have advertised and made a big emphasis that baby milk isjust a supplement and not a substitution.

2. Nestle could have argue that every customer take the product under their own responsibility, because the company never said thatbaby milk was better and never promoted to use it instead of maternal milk. Is just like the case with alcohol and cigarettes, people take it under their own risk even when they nowthat is not healthy.

3. Companies can protect themselves in the future promoting their products with all the positive and negative information even though sometimes cancontribute to lower sell than if they keep that information away. But at least in this way, they don’t have the responsibility of selling a product without advising the effects. Therefore,the company leaves the responsibility of consuming the products to the customer.

4. If I were responsible of taking the decision whether promoting or not the baby milk indeveloping countries. I would choose to keep promoting the product but with a responsible way, I mean advising people about the consequences and letting them knowing how they have toconsume it like a supplement and not like a substitution.

5. Nestle could take advantage of the situation with the HIV making a specific campaign for those people who has theproblem. Also could obtain a better image because the company is not only selling a product for a monetary benefit, but for helping the society and giving a product that can save lives.