5 - Nestle's Response, and Potential Solutions

Nestle's Response: The public responds, and the company replies.

Early on Nestle's Chairman Peter Brabeck-Letmathe stated:
“There are two different opinions on the matter [or water]. The one opinion, which I think is extreme, is represented by the NGOs, who bang on about declaring water a public right. That means that as a human being you should have a right to water. That’s an extreme solution.” (source). After receiving a wave of media backlash for the statement Nestle has been trying to take it back ever since.

In an example of how defensive Nestle has been on the issue; in 2008, Florida’s Miami-Dade County ran a radio ad claiming that tap water purer, safer, and cheaper than bottled water, and in response Nestle threatened to sue them. "Nestle’s spokesman Jim McClellan told Miami Herald that the company has never challenged utilities promoting tap water as cheap and safe, but is doing so now because the county has stepped over the line by damaging the reputation of bottled water." (source), and then the CEO and president of Nestle Waters North America, Kim Jeffery, wrote in defense of the bottled water industry “Those who propose bans on bottled water don’t acknowledge that bottled water represents less than one percent of the municipal solid waste that ends up in landfills”. He continued by promoting Nestle's Eco-Shape bottles, arguing they are environmentally friendly because they are "30 percent lighter than most other half-liter bottles" (source).

In 2012 a documentary called Bottled Life was released, criticizing Nestle and analyzing the consequences of it's actions.

Nestle posted a short response on their website, calling the film inaccurate and using a weak argument to prove as much, however Peter Brabeck-Letmathe, Chairman of the Board of
Directors Nestlé also wrote a response, which argued that Nestle is only using a small percentage of the planet's water, and also wrote as follows:

"Water required for drinking and basic hygiene is without question a human
right; i.e., a minimum of 25 L per day per person, or 1.5% of global water
withdrawal. It is the fundamental responsibility of governments to ensure
that the population is supplied with this amount of water, and it is
unacceptable that today this is still not the case for more than 800 million
people. On the other hand, I am not of the opinion that the other 98.5%
of fresh water used -- including the watering of golf courses and
carwashes -- is a human right. We need to act more respectfully when
dealing with our most precious resource; wasting water will not cease as
long as water has no value. " (source)

Still working to counteract his earlier statement that water is not a human right.

One great example of how Nestle chooses to respond is a YouTube video posted by BreakingTheSet's Abby Martin, an American journalist. Martin starred in a video criticizing Nestle's water practices, and Nestle responded by sending her a private video in return, which she broke apart in this video.

Nestle does care about it's public image, and is doing everything it can to try and make people believe it is an environmentally friendly and sustainable company. On the front page of Nestle's global website there is this image:

Which leads to an article called Nestlé Waters to certify 20 factories with AWS for water stewardship by 2020, which contains ~180 words of fluff on how Nestle has agreed to meet the AWS certification standards for some of it's factories; "The announcement is part of Nestlé Waters’ commitment to continuous improvement of its water stewardship practices, to address shared water challenges and ensure the sustainability of water resources." (source) 

Time and time again Nestle acknowledges that water is an important and declining resource, but continues to minimize it's own part in the decline and instead distract from the issue by promoting other ways it is being environmentally conscious while increasing the amount it extracts year after year.

Potential Solutions: What could Nestle have done better? What are other companies doing?

The most basic solution would be for the Nestle company to cut back their water industry, to limit the amount they are extracting. While this would decrease the supply of water, it would also decrease demand because aquifers would have a chance to naturally refill, and people's wells (especially those in California) would no longer be dried up, allowing them to use their tap water.

There are two issues with this.
This first is that it would still take time for groundwater levels to recover, and in this time when demand stays constant while supply decreases for bottled water prices could possibly increase and for this amount of time people would have even less water to access unless they could afford to continue importing it while waiting for their wells to recharge.
The second is that Nestle is a business, and they would not cut back on one of their top money-makers when demand is so high.


A more plausible solution, though unfortunately not the ultimate solution for environmental sustainability, would be for Nestle to do what other similar industries have done, and relocate their extracting and bottling facilities to areas that are not in frequent risk of droughts. Starbucks did this during the drought in California, moving their Ethos bottling operation from California to Pennsylvania. (source)

But does Nestle plan on doing this?
No, not at all. When Starbucks announced this Nestle was asked if they would consider doing the same, (in removing extraction facilities in California,) and a Nestle CEO, Tim Brown, replied "Absolutely not. In fact, if I could increase it, I would."  (source)

Nestle does have a plan in motion to prevent water waste during bottling operations. In other factories of theirs they're installing "zero water" technology, which is described here:
“We have these cooling towers [for milk] that use water.... Previously, that would have been fresh water that we would’ve drawn out of the municipal supply. Now, we can use our own water that had come previously from the milk. That water, normally, would’ve gone into the waste stream. Now it can be reused or recycled.” (source)
However this makes no mention of using the quantity of saved water to cut down on extraction operations, so it can be assumed that Nestle will simply sell the water it doesn't use in factory operations, rather than actually using less.

This is an example of how Nestle is a master of green-washing ("to make people believe that your company is doing more to protect the environment than it really is" (source)), and for the time being, this is their strategy for a "solution".



Sources:
Confino, Jo. “Nestlé's Peter Brabeck: Our Attitude towards Water Needs to Change.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 4 Feb. 2013, www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/nestle-peter-brabeck-attitude-water-change-stewardship.
“Definition of ‘Greenwash’ - English Dictionary.” Cambridge English Dictionary, Cambridge Dictionary, dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/greenwash.
Mohan, Geoffrey. “Nestle Drawing Millions of Gallons of California Water on Expired Permit, Suit Claims.” Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles Times, 13 Oct. 2015, www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-nestle-water-lawsuit-20151013-story.html.
Nastu, Paul. “Nestle Waters' CEO Counters Bottled Water Criticism.” Environmental Leader, 5 Sept. 2007, www.environmentalleader.com/2007/09/nestle-waters-ceo-counters-bottled-water-criticism/.
Nastu, Paul. “Nestle Waters Threatens To Sue Miami-Dade Over Water Ads.” Environmental Leader, 17 Oct. 2009, www.environmentalleader.com/2008/10/nestle-waters-threatens-to-sue-miami-dade-over-water-ads/.
“Nestlé Faces Backlash Over Collecting Water From Drought-Stricken Southern California.” CBS Los Angeles, 9 May 2017, losangeles.cbslocal.com/2017/05/09/nestle-waters-backlash-california-drought/.
“Nestlé Responds to Abby | Corporate Troll Spotting.” YouTube, Breakingtheset, 25 June 2013, www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxf9UtltFuY.
“Nestlé Waters to Certify 20 Factories with AWS for Water Stewardship by 2020.” Nestle.com, 25 Oct. 2017, www.nestle.com/media/news/nestle-waters-factories-alliance-for-water-stewardship#.
Peter Brabeck-Letmathe, Peter. “Documentary Film ‘Bottled Life’ Message of Mr. Peter Brabeck-Letmathe, Chairman of the Board of Directors Nestlé S.A.” Aug. 2013, www.nestle-waters.com/Documents/Bottled_Life_EN_August_2013.pdf.
Radio, Southern California Public. “Nestlé Waters CEO Isn't Stopping Bottling in California, Says New Tech Will Save Millions of Gallons.” Southern California Public Radio, 18 Nov. 2016, www.scpr.org/programs/airtalk/2015/05/13/42830/nestl-waters-ceo-isnt-stopping-bottling-in-califor/.
“Starbucks to Move Ethos Bottled Water Operations out of Drought-Stricken California.” Inhabitat Green Design Innovation Architecture Green Building, 11 May 2015, inhabitat.com/starbucks-to-move-ethos-bottled-water-operations-out-of-drought-stricken-california/.
“Water.” Nestle.com, Nestle, 2017, www.nestle.com/investors/annual-report/water.
“What Do You Think about the Bottled Life Documentary?” Nestle.com, Nestle, www.nestle.com/ask-nestle/water/answers/water-business-bottled-life-documentary.
“Why Nestle Is One of the Most Hated Companies in the World.” ZME Science, 19 May 2017, www.zmescience.com/science/nestle-company-pollution-children/.

4 - Frameworks for different Viewpoints

Frameworks for different viewpoints: How different shareholders see it as ethical or unethical.

In order to analyze whether Nestle's actions could be considered ethical I'm going to look at this using the ethical frameworks provided in class, and I'm going to try to frame it from the people's point of view, including stakeholders such as landowners, people who use water, and environmentalists. I am also going to look at this from the point of view of Nestle, and it's shareholders.

People, environmentalists, locals

From the point of view of the people outside Nestle, while using the teleological framework, Nestle's actions would be seen as unethical.

If viewing Nestle's water extraction while being consequential-ist people would be concerned with the long term environmental consequences of extracting water. They would focus on the consequences of  Nestle's actions such depleted aquifers, damaged ecosystems, and monopolies over water, which would show these actions to be unethical.

To look at it from a utilitarian standpoint, they might also see that while Nestle's water extractions are benefiting the few, those who work for Nestle, its actually hurting the majority due to the environmental impacts and the water removed that can only be used by Nestle unless paid for.

If considering ethical egoism, locals would believe that them having their own water for their own use would benefit themselves, as is in their own best interests, as long as by keeping it to themselves they are not harming anyone else.

Nestle 

From the point of view of Nestle and it's shareholders, while using the deontological framework, Nestle's actions could be seen as ethical.

Considering it from a rule-based standpoint, Nestle is usually not doing anything technically illegal. Even in the case of the San Bernardino National Forest Nestle is paying the annual fee for not having a valid permit.

Right and wrong would be based on their own perceptions of right and wrong. Nestle would likely see that as a business, the right thing to do, as well as what is their duty, is to grow as a business, to provide their product (water bottles) and to make money for their shareholders, and so by extracting such large amounts of water they are doing their duty. 

If looking at only the actions, and not the consequences, in being non-consequentialist, Nestle would only see that they are performing actions necessary to run their business, and are providing a service to people be selling them water bottles, while not looking into the environmental consequences.

Similar to this, Nestle could claim that they have good will, because they are providing a good for people, the water bottles they sell. Because their actions are with good will, they are good. 

3 - Nestle's Pumping, and the Environmental Effects

Environmental Effects: What's happening, and what makes this an issue.

Nelson Switzer, Nestle's chief sustainability officer, stated "I hope people remember that water itself is a renewable resource, as long as that is managed properly that system will be renewable forever." (source)

But is Nestle's extractions of millions of gallons a year from drought-ridden California considered proper managing of this resource? 

Water is considered a renewable resource. This is based on the assumption that the water removed from the ground and bodies of water will be returned at the same rate is is removed in a process commonly known as the water cycle.
The issue with Nestle, and water removed from the environment in general, is that it is being removed at a significantly faster rate than it is returned, and faster than it takes for the earth to naturally filter and re-disperse that water, which leaves less water to be extracted, creating a feedback loop resulting in less and less clean and available water.

Nestle has a couple different ways of collecting water from the earth, with it's two main methods being collecting flowing water from rivers and streams (as shown in the video on the previous post), and by collecting groundwater from underwater aquifers, which includes "springs" where aquifers meet the surface.

While the environmental impacts from removing surface water are easy to see, (taking flowing water from above ground disrupts shoreline life such as animals that use the natural body of water as a source of drinking water or hunting grounds, water life (fish and water-mammals such as otters, beavers, muskrats, etc), potentially alters the natural course of the water, thus altering the ecosystem downstream, decreases amount of water that makes it downstream, and displaces water from it's natural location, making it more difficult to be naturally redistributed back into the environment,) the effects of draining aquifers faster than they can recharge (refill) are a bit more complicated.

In the previous post it was mentioned that in one particular case when Nestle moved into a town and set up a pumping facility that a local protested because his well had dried up. This is actually a common affect when a larger extraction facility (such as Nestle) uses an aquifer in the same area as a smaller extraction facility (such as a local with a well). Extracting water causes the water table to drop, meaning that those that are not capable of digging as deep as others will no longer be able to reach water. Building a well or pump also causes something called a cone of depression, which is an area of even lower water level surrounding the extraction area, which means that anything nearby will need to be almost as low to reach the water. Because of this Nestle setting up extraction plants where communities already exists not only disrupts the community above ground, but also depletes or entirely removes the water available for any other use that can't keep up, such as local agriculture, wells, and even groundwater extracted for household use. 

Other effects of lowered water tables due to depleted aquifers include lower water levels in rivers, wetlands, and lakes, as the water from these bodies flows into the dry earth to recharge empty aquifers. Many natural ecosystems depend on these bodies of water for survival, and as water levels fall these ecosystems shrink, causing local plants and animals to die out or be displaced from their natural habitats. The droughts resulting from these lowered water levels not only kill the plants and animals that live in the wild, but also livestock and agriculture consumed by humans. 

This also removed water from the natural water cycle, which decreases rainfall which is necessary for most plants to survive, and dampens the surface area of land. Both the dryness of land and the decreased plant coverage add to global warming. Plants are a reflective surface of radioactive light and increase the albedo (amount of light reflected back into the atmosphere) of the earth's surface, and without these reflective surfaces this radiation is able to penetrate Earth's surface and warm it. Dryness of land leads to deaths which result in decomposition which releases CO2 into the atmosphere, and leads to fires which further decrease plant cover and release carbon into the atmosphere through burning. Both of these things increase the amount of chlorofluorocarbons in the atmosphere, which are broken down by ultraviolet radiation which releases chlorine into the stratosphere, which then breaks down ozone molecules. (source) 

These may sound over-complicated, but it's the simplification and minimization of environmental effects that has allowed the depletion of aquifers to go as far as it has. 

Speaking of which, below is a chart and map of the depletion volume of the United States' major aquifer systems.

Cumulative net groundwater depletion in major aquifer systems or groups in the United States, 1900-2008 (Konikow, 2011).

(source)

Notice some of the worst depletion (in red) in California, which is a victim of recent droughts and of much of Nestle's ground water extraction.

The degradation of aquifers is happening all over the United States, and the leading cause of depletion is the over-extraction of water faster than aquifers can be recharged. As the United States' leading distributor of bottled water Nestle is one of the main contributors. 

But it's not just a matter of how much water is being extracted, due to the effects on locals and the heightened vulnerability of drought in some areas versus others (California), location is a key factor in how ethical, or rather, unethical the extraction of ground water by the Nestle corporation is. 

Sources:

Perlman, Howard. “Groundwater Depletion.” Groundwater Depletion, USGS Water Science, The USGS Water Science School, water.usgs.gov/edu/gwdepletion.html.

Solomon, Susan. “Stratospheric Ozone Depletion: A Review of Concepts and History.” Reviews of Geophysics, vol. 37, no. 3, 1999, pp. 275–316., doi:10.1029/1999rg900008.

“USGS Groundwater Data Go to Times Square.” USGS Groundwater Information: USGS Groundwater Data Included in Times Square Visualization, The USGS Water Science School, water.usgs.gov/ogw/times-sq/.

2 - Nestle's Pumping, and the Social and Legal Effects

Social and Legal Effects: What's happening, and what makes this an issue.

-water facilities in places where they're unwanted by locals

-extracting water without a legal permit, not meeting standards that would be required by an updated permit

-extracting water that flows on public grounds

Along with being the largest food and beverage producer, Nestle is the world's largest producer of bottled water. (source)

Nestle's history of bottling water:
In the 1990's Nestle entered the bottled water business when it purchased San Pelligrino and Perrier. With the purchase of Perrier in 1992 Nestle acquired Poland Spring, Arrowhead and Zephyrhills, and then Deer Park in 1993.
It was argued from the beginning that selling water bottles in poor developing nations "would make the governments of those countries less inclined to invest in the infrastructure needed for reliable public water systems" (source), but the first legal confrontation Nestle faced concerning it's water industry was in 1995 when Nestle received permission from the state of Texas to pump water in the town of Eustace, and the locals protested. Bart Sipriano, a local landowner took Nestle to court when his own well dried up due to Nestle's nearby pumping, which eventually made it to the supreme court in 1999. Though Nestle won this case, there were many others where locals managed to justify against the legal pumping of Nestle. For example; Nestle also faced controversy when concerning their pumping in 1998 when attempting to raise the amount of water they were allowed to extract from a Florida aquifer from 310,000 gallons a day to 2.6 million, which they lost in court against the local water district. Then in Wisconsin from 2000 to 2001 Nestle fought and eventually lost an appeal to extract water from the Mecan River. In Michigan Nestle tried to build a pumping and bottling plant  however the Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation organization took Nestle to court, and in 2003 it was decided in favor of Michigan, based on the environmental harm the pump would do. However Nestle appealed and took this case to the supreme court as well, and in 2007 was granted legal permission to pump in Michigan. Very many cases such as these followed, some were won and some were lost.

Curiously enough, cases concerning the locations and quantity of pumping were not the only legal battles Nestle faced concerning their water industry. According to The Corporate Research Project; " In 2003 a series of class-action lawsuits were filed against the company, charging it with false advertising for calling its Poland Spring brand natural spring water. Nestlé, apparently not eager to defend the integrity of its brand under oath, settled the disputes out of court for $12 million." (source)
The case was that Poland Spring's "natural spring water" was considered false labeling and advertising, and Nestle is facing a similar case currently in which "a Chicago-based company" is suing Nestle for selling bottled tap water, and it's been claimed that "nearly half of the bottled water in PET plastic bottles is actually from a tap" (source). Nestle continues to face similar legal battles, including ones concerning the sanitation of their water and misleading advertising and labeling, all of which further show Nestle's lack of concern with ethical practices.

Clearly the controversial water extraction is happening on a wide scale, but lets focus on one particular area - California.

California has been facing a drought since 2014 (source) and has been estimated to be it's worst in 1200 years (source). Restrictions have been placed to restrict water consumption, and yet Nestle continues to pump in multiple locations of California, both shipping the water nationwide (and in the case of their Pure Life brand, worldwide), but also selling this water back to the California citizens who have to restrict their water use, and are in need due to the lack of ground water. On the Morongo Band of Mission Indians' reservation in California Nestle has been extracting water for over a decade. While Nestle has been avoiding releasing reports on the amount of water extracted since 2009 its been estimated at about 200 million gallons a year. (source) But this is only one example of Nestle's water extractions in California, in fact, Nestle has 11 in California (source).

While there are many more cases of Nestle extracting water in California during it's drought, the one that turns the most heads is the extracting happening in California's San Bernardino National Forest. Nestle's permit to extract water from the area expired in 1988, however Nestle has continued it's water extraction without hesitation, withdrawing a recorded 27 million gallons in 2013 (this is not including the other 51 million gallons it extracts from the area annually with a standing permit) (source).

(source)

While the permit would only require 18 months to process, Nestle actually isn't working to renew it.  Because of Nestle's questionable practices and massive quantity of water extracting, it would be complicated and expensive to renew their permit, and if they did they would have to follow any new regulations that have been added since 1988 (source) . The annual fee on the expired permit is only $524, practically nothing compared to Nestle's 2016 operating profit of 13.7 billion (source), so it's not worth it for them to go through with the processes and new regulations when they can pay such a relatively small amount a year to keep doing what they're doing.

 In this video, Nelson Switzer, Nestle's chief sustainability officer, states "I hope people remember that water itself is a renewable resource, as long as that is managed properly that system will be renewable forever." (source)


But is Nestle's extractions of millions of gallons a year from drought-ridden California considered proper managing of this resource?



Sources:
Andrei, Mihai. “Why Nestle Is One of the Most Hated Companies in the World.” ZME Science, 19 May 2017, www.zmescience.com/science/nestle-company-pollution-children/.
“Annual Report 2016.” Nestle.com, Nestle, 2016, www.nestle.com/investors/annual-report.
“California Drought.” California Drought Information | USGS California Water Science Center, U.S. Geological Survey California Water Science Center, 31 May 2017, ca.water.usgs.gov/data/drought/.
“Humans Are Free.” Nestle Pays Only $524 to Extract 27,000,000 Gallons of California Drinking Water, 1 Jan. 1970, humansarefree.com/2015/08/nestle-pays-only-524-to-extract.html.
James, Ian. “Little Oversight as Nestle Taps Morongo Reservation Water.” Desert Sun, TDS, 31 Mar. 2015, www.desertsun.com/story/news/environment/2014/07/12/nestle-arrowhead-tapping-water/12589267/.
Mohan, Geoffrey. “Nestle Drawing Millions of Gallons of California Water on Expired Permit, Suit Claims.” Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles Times, 13 Oct. 2015, www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-nestle-water-lawsuit-20151013-story.html.
“Nestlé: Corporate Rap Sheet .” Good Jobs First, Corporate Research Project, 9 Mar. 2013, www.corp-research.org/nestle.
“Nestlé Faces Backlash Over Collecting Water From Drought-Stricken Southern California.” CBS Los Angeles, 19 May 2017, www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-nestle-water-lawsuit-20151013-story.html.
“Nestlé Faces Backlash Over Collecting Water From Drought-Stricken Southern California.” CBS Los Angeles, 9 May 2017, losangeles.cbslocal.com/2017/05/09/nestle-waters-backlash-california-drought/.
Tajalli, Maryam. “Beneath All That Delicious Chocolate, Nestle Has A Lot Of Bad Behavior.” Carbonated.TV, www.carbonated.tv/news/nestle-lead-maggi-india-lawsuit.

1 - An Introduction to Nestle

An Introduction to Nestle: Who are they?

What's the first thing you think of when you hear "Nestle"? For me, I think of two things. The first is Nestle CRUNCH chocolate bars. This isn't surprising, considering Nestle puts the logo right on the packaging plain and clear:

 However this isn't the case with most Nestle products, so you might not know that Nestle is actually the biggest food and beverage company in the world (source), owning companies such as Purina, Dreyer's, Gerber, DiGiorno, and more, and everything under these brands in a vast web of producers (source).

See anything there you might recognize? See anything you purchase? Keep that in mind for a minute. The second thing that comes to mind when I hear Nestle is "boycott", and before starting this blog I couldn't begin to remember why. However considering the massive amount of companies actually owned by Nestle it's had to imagine how any one could successfully boycott it. Just looking around my apartment right now I see Purina cat-food, quite a few of the different types of candy (it is just after Halloween), Poland Spring water bottles, and Pellegrino soda. Today while buying on food on campus I recognize seeing at least 5 others. Nestle is so large and so integrated into our lives, I doubt it would be easy for me to boycott them. Now that you've considered the brands you purchase, would you be able to?

You might be surprised to hear that along with being the largest food and beverage company, Nestle is also one of the most boycotted(source). An official boycott was launched in 1977 and has been on and off since then, and even today two organizations, the International Nestle Boycott Committee and The Council of Canadians are still devoted to avoiding and protesting Nestle.

This is because Nestle has had a history of unethical practices. It's most historic was in the 1970's when Nestle landed itself in deep trouble when it was caught marketing an Infant food formula to mothers in poor developing countries. There were two main problems, the first was that the formula was marketed as healthy and nutritional so uneducated mothers who were provided a small amount for free from hospitals when they gave birth would use that over their own milk, and then when that amount ran out they would no longer be producing milk (because if not used it will stop being produced) and would then be forced to buy more of the formula. The second, which was more common and more pressing, is that the formula was in powder form, and needed to be mixed with water to be consumed. Because of this mothers would mix it with water that was unsanitary or dilute it when they were running out, resulting in many cases of malnutrition and illness. Eventually Nestle did comply with the marketing guidelines set up by the World Health Organization, but only after the boycott campaign in 1977, and even after still went against those guidelines by continuing to give out free formula to hospitals, and still did so as of 2007 in Bangladesh.
Even now there is a $98.6 million dollar lawsuit in India against Nestle for selling Maggi (instant noodles) with the accusation that it contains higher than the legal content of lead. (source) You can read more about the history of Nestle's unethical practices here.


Nestle's Mission Statement:

“Nestlé is the world's leading nutrition, health and wellness company. Our mission of "Good Food, Good Life" is to provide consumers with the best tasting, most nutritious choices in a wide range of food and beverage categories and eating occasions, from morning to night.” (source)

Nestle's Vision Statement:

“To be a leading, competitive, Nutrition, Health and Wellness Company delivering improved shareholder value by being a preferred corporate citizen, preferred employer, preferred supplier selling preferred products.” (source) 

Both Nestle's mission statement and vision statement focus on providing value to it's customers, and the products they offer. Notice that neither mention or acknowledge ethical practices or values. Neither suggest any goal for how the company is run, or it's standards in operations or practices outside the products offered. Considering Nestle's history of scandals and ethical issues (including child labor, misleading labeling and promotions, marketing to uneducated mothers without other options, price fixing, and pollution(source)), I'm not that surprised no ethical goals or values are in either of these statements. From the history of Nestle, it's seems ethics aren't at the core of their corporation. 

In this blog we are going to learn further about Nestle's unethical practices, and how Nestle has responded (or not responded) to them, further showing how the Nestle corporation values ethics. For this blog I am going to focus on Nestle's over-pumping of water. Through the next few posts you will learn about what Nestle is doing, why it's wrong, and what should be done about it. 

Sources:

Andrei, Mihal. “Why Nestle Is One of the Most Hated Companies in the World.” ZME Science, 19 May 2017, www.zmescience.com/science/nestle-company-pollution-children/.

Jurevicius, Ovidijus. “Nestlé Mission Statement 2013.” Strategic Management Insight, 14 Sept. 2013, www.strategicmanagementinsight.com/mission-statements/nestle-mission-statement.html.

McGrath, Maggie. “World's Largest Food And Beverage Companies 2017: Nestle, Pepsi And Coca-Cola Dominate The Field.” Forbes, www.forbes.com/sites/maggiemcgrath/2017/05/24/worlds-largest-food-and-beverage-companies-2017-nestle-pepsi-and-coca-cola-dominate-the-landscape/#3fc343db3a69.
Tajalli, Maryam. “Beneath All That Delicious Chocolate, Nestle Has A Lot Of Bad Behavior.” Carbonated.TV, www.carbonated.tv/news/nestle-lead-maggi-india-lawsuit.