The Nestlé question: Is it ever ethical to do something immoral and unethical for ostensibly moral reasons?
October 2nd, 2009
This is the Nestlé press release (yesterday) announcing their decision to stop buying milk from the Mugabes. The content reflects the media report we posted yesterday, but we thought you might like to read, in their own words, the reasons why they started buying milk from disGrace Mugabe’s stolen dairy empire.
Is it ever ethical to do something very unethical for ostensibly ethical reasons? Nestlé seems to think so.
What do you think?
The Dairy Board of Zimbabwe today informed the Gushungo Dairy Estate, and the 7 other farms with whom Nestlé began working on a temporary basis in February 2009, that it is now in a position to resume purchasing their milk. Nestlé Zimbabwe therefore will no longer be receiving milk from these 8 farms from Sunday 4 October.
In February 2009 the food and economic crisis in Zimbabwe reached a level where the dairy industry was at real risk of collapse, and the Dairy Board was no longer able to buy milk from these 8 farms. In light of our long-term commitment to Zimbabwe, we bought this milk on a temporary basis. This helped prevent a further deterioration in food supplies in Zimbabwe at that time.
Nestlé has been in Zimbabwe for 50 years, working with the population of Zimbabwe and striving to maintain a long-term viable operation in often challenging conditions. We operate in Zimbabwe, as we do in every country, through good times and bad. We work for the long-term, in a way which has positive impact on our consumers, employees and suppliers.
In light of the recent controversy surrounding our relationship with the Gushungo Dairy Estate, we believe that this announcement reflects our long-term commitment to Zimbabwe while acknowledging the specific circumstances around these events.
October 2nd, 2009 11:57
Good Day,
If anyone of you do read french, this is today’s article in a Geneva newspaper (“Tribune de Genève”)
Here is the link:http://www.tdg.ch/actu/economie/nestle-renonce-lait-mugabe-2009-10-02
Renaud
October 2nd, 2009 12:00
Well that is a difficult philosophical question; with no easy answers. However, when it comes to Nestle, you have to put this in a broader pattern of behavior see Controversy and criticism of Nestle. Judge Nestle on their actions and not on their press releases.
October 2nd, 2009 12:15
Google translated version of French article:
October 2nd, 2009 15:05
“The Dairy Board of Zimbabwe today informed the Gushungo Dairy Estate, and the 7 other farms with whom Nestlé began working on a temporary basis in February 2009, that it is now in a position”
Should this read….not in a position.
Perhaps It’s me but it doesn’t make sense.
October 2nd, 2009 16:06
@Dave Fish eagle – I think that what it means is that Dairy Board will resume buying from Grace Mugabe (previously they weren’t), and Nestle will buy from Dairy Board again instead of directly from the farms. In other words, Nestle are not buying from Grace Mugabe and the press release is factual. ( meaningless becuase they are still indirectly supporting the woman by buying from Dairy Board). If this is the case then Grace Mugabe is not being ‘punished’ for stealing the farms.
But what do you do…? Ask all Zimbabweans to stop drinking milk to boycott Dairy Board? The horrible woman has a monopoly and she knows it.
October 2nd, 2009 18:27
Thanks UK Diaspora.
I noted a comment on another blog which congratulated the media for forcing this change of heart by Nestle. The comment also pointed out that one of the 10 most profitable companies in the London Stock exchange, which deal in investments and savings also holds most of ZANU-PF retirement funds.
Old Mutual.
Food for Thought.