Talk:Nestlé

Dead citation

The first one:

“

"Nestlé: Following the Customers' Tracks with Google Analytics". Google Analytics. http://www.google.com/analytics/case_study_nestle.html. Retrieved 2007-02-21.

”

--Argav ۞ 09:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

contested statements removed

• This has centered on its apparent recommendations for breastfeeding mothers to switch to its infant formula milk products, leading to the alleged deaths of numerous babies each year as a result of formula being mixed with contaminated water

{{Fact|date=December 2006}}.

• Over 500 dogs, cats, birds and cattle died. {{Fact|date=June 2007}}
• In Mecosta County, Michigan, United States, a determined citizen coalition has opposed the efforts of a bottled water subsidiary of Nestlé to gain private control of important groundwater supplies. {{Fact|date=June 2007}}

Please do not re-insert this information into the article without a citation.--BirgitteSB 21:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Nestle bias in article

In the opening sentence of this article, it says "Some of Nestlé's business practices have been considered unethical." I was just wondering: why is this in the opening paragraph? Is this really fair to Nestle? The fact is, ALL corporations have experienced allegations of unethical practices at one point or another in their histories. For example, the Ford Motor Company, has all kinds of allegations of unethical behavior that have been leveled at that company over the years (from infamous Ford Pinto memo to allegations of Nazi collaboration during WWII). However, all this is buried deep in the article (as in the case with most Wikipedia articles on various corporations). Only the Nestle article plays up this info and puts it in the opening paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.91.112.76 (talk) 06:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

This entire article is a disgrace. It has evidently been hi-jacked by activists and repeats unfounded allegations as facts. This has about as much to do with a neutral point of view as the worst sort of propaganda, and I am sure that nothing in this aligns with the aims of Wikipedia. There is no response to comments such as the one above. Why not? Are you satisfied with this standard of drivel passing for a knowledgeable article here? I also removed the email of a Nestlé UK executive. Including that is simply unforgiveable. PZ1800 (talk) 08:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I find it interesting that you call other people "activists", PZ1800. I had been meaning to bring up your large removal and white-washing edits back in October[1]. You even described yourself as a "previously anonymous Nestlé person"[2].

So, are a Nestlé employee? That would be a conflict of interest. You removed a good bit of critical material, much of it sourced (not "unfounded"), and spun several other critical statements to sound like the matter was in the past.

PZ1800, it's your edits that are suspicious. Please explain yourself. --Imroy (talk) 09:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

From the perspective of one who is unfamiliar with the baby-formula contraversy generally and Nestlé's involvement specifically, this article appears to be strikingly biased against the company in question. Even if the "Controversy" section is entirely accurate, this doesn't excuse the nonobjective tone or the lack of proper citations. The video sales page of an anti-formula activist website hardly qualifies as a "reliable, third-party published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" required by Wikipedia guidelines. --Xiaphias (talk) 10:07, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree the article has a distinctly non-neutral POV, and I think it's partly in reaction to repeated attempts to white wash the article, criticism section deleted without comment by an IP numerous times, promotional wording added etc. It needs a re-work but I think the only way to do it is to take do it section by seciton with an explination posted here. --Nate1481 11:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The behaviour and subsequent consequences are serious enough that it cannot be a mere corporate recitation type of article as many are here on Wikipedia. Nestle is both a corporation and a symbol. I think it tries to portray itself as simply a benign producer of consumer products, but it is also a textbook case of corporate misbehaviour. A review must take this into account. Alaney2k (talk) 17:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Out of interest has any one managed to use the WIki scanner to trace any ip's back to Nestle? As that could then be added in ... but not sure if any 'anonymous Nestlé persons' have been that nieve.

PS Just to clarify, I don't like nestle, but I think the article will show nestle's bad side best if it is kept strictly neutral, i.e. letting people make up their own minds based on abundant evidence rather than POV wording. Currently there are some weasely bits on both sides, and the articel comes accross badly from it. --Nate1481 17:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. As far as POV stuff goes, as long as it is attributed as well as cited, it has its place. It's a difficult article. A huge company and a long list of controversy. Alaney2k (talk)

I am new to this but i am unhappy with the changes in the baby milk section. There is very good evidence that formula carries 3 sorts of risks - those intrinsic to it because it is made from cows milk and does not carry the living protective elements of breast milk. 2 because it is contaminated with pathogenic bacteria and there are deaths of infants resulting from this - and/or contaminated with other substances - most recently melamine - and it is accidentally or deliberately ( usually as a result of poverty) made up unsafely. There is evidence from UNICEF of the number of baby deaths - 1.5 million and a recent paper from the USA citing deaths of about 700 per year. Babies also die in the UK - about 50 or so prem babies as a result of necrotising enterocolitis which is almost exclusively a disease of the formula fed infant. - Advertising activity by this company leads directly to sales replacing breastmilk. The product is advertised unethically and outside the WHO code and breeches are picked up regularly. JRB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.236.223 (talk) 01:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Regarding this article's "evidence" offered and sourced by footnote 15: This is hearsay, and from a non-objective source to boot. 216.221.74.42 (talk) 08:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)j

History

--↑ɻ⅞θʉɭђɥл₮₴Ṝ 20:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

"Powdered Milk" Controversy

This is a problem which plagues this article, so it ought to be addressed. The controversy regarding powdered milk should not receive undue attention here. It is a broader and more general issue than the company in question: Nestle's role as a manufacturer and marketer of powdered milk makes it a player, but not the arena. This article's focus shouldn't be on the topic itself (i.e., the effects of powdered milk and of its promotion in undeveloped nations) but rather on Nestle's specific involvement.

By way of analogy, please visit the article on Planned Parenthood. As a pro-choice lobbyist organization, it is intimately connected with the topic of abortion; but this is not the article's focus. Note that the "Controversy and criticism" section does not debate the merits of abortion, nor decry Planned Parenthood for its support of this policy. Instead, it reports concerns like its alleged failure to report cases of statutory rape as mandated by law.

This is the manner in which such scenarios should be addressed. If Nestle has violated law or policy regarding formula marketing, that rightly deserves mention–perhaps even in the introductory paragraph. But to condemn Nestle simply for selling or advertising baby formula is to take a stance in this contentious issue, and this is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Moreover, the pros and cons of breastmilk deserve no mention in this forum, just as the pros and cons of legalized abortion are not mentioned in the Planned Parenthood article.

I will effect such changes as I have indicated, and I welcome your feedback. --Xiaphias (talk) 07:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The single sentence as it is now is ok in my view, it mentions it but does not go into detail. It could be argued that no specific issue should be mentioned, but considering that it lead to the Nestle Boycott it is notable enough for the lead. The additional details added were to much for the lead section, the parralle to Planned Parenthood falls down on the fact that the issue created the organisation in that case, where as the organisation created the issue here. --Nate1481 08:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

To quote WP:LEAD:

"The lead section, lead, or introduction of a Wikipedia article is the section before the table of contents and first heading. The lead serves both as an introduction to the article below and as a short, independent summary of the important aspects of the article's topic."

That is why a summary of the controversies belongs in the lead, not to have undue weight. Alaney2k (talk) 15:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Very true, but this dosen't mean re doing the TOC. I have noted additional controversies in a new version but avoided details. If we are going to the higher level of detail we will need to expand the rest of the lead too, as it would be to short (relatively) if left as it is with a lengthened controversy paragraph. --Nate1481 15:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a good discussion. Since the lead overall is small, what you've written fits. However, we must guard against watering it down. These are very prominent controversies. Saying 'controversies' is probably not enough, possibly something noting 'food safety', 'worker's issues' (or some other term) and (I'm not sure of the wording) 'local/community relations', meaning the use of aquifers and the Ethiopia situation. To bring up the quality of the lead, some expansion is warranted. The company is so big that decisions have to be made about where to place details, and where to bring up items in the lead. Probably three paragraphs of lead? 1. description today 2. summary of history 3. summary of controversies Alaney2k (talk) 16:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Right, I agree with you both. Some of these issues definitely deserve mention in the intro, which should highlight (as you've suggested) the main areas of concern rather than specific incidents. The underlying problem is that introduction reflected the article's disproportionately lengthy "Controversy" section. A preferable method to handle the issue of corporate criticism is found in the Microsoft article. Microsoft has been charged with numerous violations of law and ethical standards, but these are summarized succinctly in the intro. Its "Criticism" section is divided not by each incident, but by the areas of alleged abuse: "Anti-competitive," "Freedom and privacy," and "Misrepresentation." I believe this is the paradigm which we should attempt to emulate. Perhaps branching off a separate Criticisms of Nestle article is also warranted. --Xiaphias (talk) 08:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The Microsoft article is a good model. I can see a need for a Criticisms of Nestlé or similar that could go in to the details without taking over the article, but would opt to tidy things up here then split to save repeat shuffling between the two. I think thing the lead in general needs a bit of a rework to be closer to WP:LEAD, skipping the issue of the critisims bit for now, it needs some expansion. With that done then the critisims part can be made apropreate without dominating, and mention the areas of issues, e.g. worker rights, product promtion methods(I think the baby milk does deserve special mention, probaby as an example?) enviromental issues etc, the wording for the groupings can be decided as we go. I'll have a try at expanding the lead first & see how we go. --Nate1481 10:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia actually has an article on Powdered Milk, yet in it there is no mention of controversy, nor of Nestlé. Clearly, this article is a viable location for such material, as it doesn't seem to have any other exposure on this site. 142.68.211.213 (talk) 08:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

We already have a whole article dedicated to this. Gr1st (talk) 08:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Nestle & slave labor after 2005.

"When 2005 came and went with little to no change, Nestle was ready with one of the stupidest excuses imaginable. According to them, an escalating civil war in the Ivory Coast prevented them from sending anyone in to monitor the situation. Amazingly though, their team of buyers, who must consist of nothing but crack military commandos, have yet to have a problem getting in and out completely unscathed. To add even less credibility to their claim that making delicious treats without at least some slave help wasn't possible, several chocolate companies are now selling "Fair Trade" chocolate which is monitored to insure no slave labor is used in its production, though some sophisticated consumers say that chocolate isn't as good, since it does not contain the unique flavor of the bitter tears of children."

http://www.cracked.com/article_15967_awful-truth-behind-5-items-probably-on-your-grocery-list.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.77.255 (talk) 05:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Aussie HQ?

Does anybody know where the Nestle Australian Headquarters is? I know this isn't the right place to ask but I need an answer now. Thanks User:SilverYoshi95 10:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.108.132.159 (talk)

I think it's in Australia.76.234.168.125 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC).

You will find the answer on the Nestlé website (where else)?PZ1800 (talk) 15:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

201 Sussex St Sydney.

Wiki contradiction over #2 largest food company

Sierra Trees (talk) 14:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)This Nestle article claims that Pepsico is the 2nd largest food company in the world. However, Kraft's Wiki page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kraft_Foods makes the claim that Kraft is the 2nd largest. I cannot determine the correct one so I have not made a change. Hoping someone else does and will correct it.

Nestlé on Facebook

Here's the link as proof. Yay! More criticism! [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Radicalfaith360 (talk • contribs) 02:56, 24 April 2010

Interesting story, which the Wall Street Journal also recently covered. I'm not sure it's encyclopedic, especially for a company that's been around for ages, since this story is but a tiny blip in their timeline. Still, a brief mention could easily be reliably sourced at this point, if somebody wants to give it a try. jæs (talk) 03:52, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Nescafe's own Cafe

Whys is Nescafe not starting its own coffee shop chain - something like Costa or Starbucks. I think its gonna fly. They already have their brand established all over the world. Brand is something which can take years to build. If they have one - cash on it. Besides, coffee chain business is pretty good, and can be a boomer in emerging markets like India and China. Worth giving a thought..

Rahul Maheshwari —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.3.34.182 (talk) 23:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Because their coffee is not good enough quality to even begin to compete with already-successful chains. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.195.129.125 (talk) 14:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation

There's no citation in this section. I've never heard /ˈnɛst leɪ/ spoken in English in my life. The one and only pronunciation I've ever heard is /ˈnɛs li/. I'm not going to make any change because I can't find anything outside of Wiki, and I don't know what everyone else's experience is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.227.159.6 (talk) 06:31, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

That's the only pronunciation I've ever heard, too. 74.192.216.117 (talk) 22:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this judgement. On a similar subject, why is the transcription of the pronunciation of Nestlé in North America given in angled brackets /x/? It's not phonological form, it's phonetic form, and should be in [x], right? The phonetic transcriptions on Wikipedia are notoriously inaccurate.

Kylebgorman (talk) 14:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

At least in the U.S., TV commercials in the 1950-60's ended with the jingle "N-E-S-T-L-E-S, Ness Lees makes the very best." http://www.spike.com/video-clips/3mwtmj/nestles-quikMab819c (talk) 17:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Bottled water advertisement

I came to this article searching for more information about the full page ad Nestle took out claiming "bottled water is the most environmentally responsible consumer product in the world". Googling "nestle bottled water is the most environmentally responsible consumer product in the world" gets over 1.2 million hits. This advertising campaign by Nestle generated an overwhelming amount of criticism and discussion. Here are the first 4 google hits.

• Groups Challenge Nestlé’s Bottled Water Greenwashing
• See Nestle’s Infamous Greenwashing Ad (Don’t Stare, It’s Not Polite)
• Kicking the bottle: "environmentally responsible" bottled water? No such thing.(GREENWASHED)
• Nestlé bottled-water ads misleading, environmentalists say,

I am wondering why this has not been added to the controversy section, I was going to add it myself but thought I'd ask first if this issue has arrised before and if there was a specific reason why the information is not in the article. Freikorp (talk) 02:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Well I'm not sure, but the word that pops out at me is "ad." If there was any section that promoted a company (aka Ads) I would get rid of because it falls under WP:Spam. Just my thoughts. --Andy^{Speak to Me (Breathe)}_Contribs 02:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I have no intention of promoting the company, I'm just adding how the media commented on the reaction to their advertising campaign. I've added it to the controversy section. I welcome any further discussion on the matter. :) Freikorp (talk) 03:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Did the factory close down recently in England? I did not see anything about it on the page.50.16.74.103 (talk) 05:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Nestlé & Ethiopia from 2002

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/dec/20/marketingandpr.debtrelief is what first made me aware of Nestlé and the preceding consumer boycott regarding marketing of baby milk formula in the developing world. I know Oxfam said boycotts of Nestlé would not help but I have boycotted Nestlé and all its subsidiaries ever since then. I don't think I am the only person out there whose eyes were similarly opened to Nestlé in 2002. Is this not notable enough to be included? Psemmusa (talk) 11:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Definitely seems notable enough to me. Freikorp (talk) 12:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Too much scandal

Excuse me but it seems to me that the page on something as notorious as Nestlé should not have various random scandals taking up more than 1/4 of its length. Maybe somebody should tag this in the page's heading. 89.102.111.56 (talk) 16:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC) (User:Misacek01, currently logged out)

Firstly I'd hardly consider it random, they're listed in the chronological order they occurred, just as the history of the company is listed in the chronological order it occurred. I fail to see any logic in your argument. They controversy section takes up so much space because Nestle have been involved in a lot of controversy. The business section takes up a similar ammount of room, why are you not suggesting we tag that in the page's heading? Freikorp (talk) 22:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

By "random" I meant not that they're not ordered, but rather that they don't seem as anything but your run-of-the-mill scandals that you could find for most any company. And my argument is this: I believe a Wikipedia page should give as complete and balanced an account of whatever it is the page is about as possible. It seems to me that most every "controversy" Nestlé's been through in recent years is listed here, making that section by far the most exhaustive one. If you wanted to describe the company's business in similar detail, you'd wind up having about ten pages on it, if not more, considering this is one of the largest corporations in the world. As to what exactly I'd tag the page for: bias. I don't know about you, but when I see a page where criticism takes up one quarter, I'd think the subject of the page is something althogether untrustworthy, phony, or outright wrong. Now I admit I don't know much about Nestlé, but if that were the case, I probably would have heard something about it before in my life. It's not as if their chocolates aren't on the shelves in most every store. And I never got the impression that Nestlé would be much worse than any other company. 89.102.124.188 (talk) 19:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC) (User:Misacek01, currently logged out)

Just to clarify what might be a misunderstanding between us: I'm not saying delete the controversies (at least not without proper verification first, and then only if they turn out to be overstated, even though it is my personal opinion they are). I'm saying that the ratio of them in the page's content is too high, and that ideally the rest of the page be expanded so as not to afford an undue amount of attention to the controversy aspect. I know that's the comment everyone around here just loves to hear, and that I should do it myself since I feel so strongly about it. I just meant to alert others to the fact (or rather, my opinion of it). It's true I didn't read through the discussion above, where it's amply addressed. But personally, of all the comments up there I most agree with whoever it was that wrote "this page is an embarassment" (on this particular point, on the person's other accusations, I have my opinions, but not enough knowledge in the matter to say for sure). 89.102.124.188 (talk) 20:13, 20 April 2011 (UTC) (User:Misacek01, currently logged out)

Ok, I at least understand your argument now. I have no major problems with shortening the section overall. Instead of having so many sub sections we could put it all in one paragraph. I.e Nestle have been criticised for buying milk from illegally seized farms,(reference) deforestation,(reference), misleading avertising etc (though slightly more detailed than that). The "Marketing of formula" was so huge it actually has its own page, and I feel it should not be shortened here at all. Its how I came to hear of the Nestle boycott; one of my University lectureers cited it as a case of henous explotation of human rights in the third world, I think a reasonalbe amount of people are aware of this scandal. Do you have any suggestions on shortening the section or shall I go ahead and make changes when I get the time? Freikorp (talk) 03:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it 'suffers' from higher scrutiny as a European corporate, and the actions of equivalent US global corporates deserve equal reporting. Granted 1/4 of the article does seem excessive but these all have RS and are notable (with the exception of facebook reactions). As you say above, Nestle is a text-book case of a global corporate with a history of bad CSR reports/misleading messages and a lot more could be written, and probably should in the interests of the encyclopaedia. What is missing is any description of pro-active policies or chairing/memberships/NGO collaboration with bodies that can address the issues. Ephebi (talk) 09:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

New Factory

factory must be consider — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alejandro.godoy (talk • contribs) 01:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

World's largest

Hi. At the moment the lead paragraph says "the world's largest food and nutrition company". I'm sure this is right, but I can't see where in the article it is referenced. I was loth to fact-tag it straight away but surely if we assert this there should be something cited in the article to support it? Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 11:51, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Creating Shared Value

I am Nicolas Lorne. This is my first trial to contribute to Wikipedia. My role at Nestlé is to promote and embed the Nestlé Culture Values and Principles in our operations worldwide. I am French and I am currently sitting in HR Corporate in Switzerland. I wonder if the Nestlé concept of Creating Shared Value (CSV) could be referenced in this article and if it would help balancing the controversy chapter. The CSV concept was developped a few years ago by Michael Porter and Nestlé is trying to implement it mainstream in its operations globally. For further insight, I recommend browsing www.nestle.com where a map of the world displays the numerous CSV projects currently performed by Nestlé. Most of these projects can be linked to one of the 8 UN Millenium Goal developments. For transparency purpose my profile can be seen on Linkedin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NicolasLorne (talk • contribs) 17:59, 27 February 2012 (UTC)