Nestle’s corporate social responsibility: shared value?
March 4, 2008
Nestle (No relation. I just can’t figure out how to enter the accent mark) has released its first report on corporate social and environmental responsibility. The report, Shared Value, available online in four languages, takes an interesting approach. It couples each of its social goals with the benefits to its business. Two examples: Reducing the environmental footprint and reducing our operating costs,” and “Helping farmers improve earnings and assuring our supply of raw materials.” What to make of this? This question is very much on my mind these days because I’ve been asked to write something addressing the question, “Is there anything the food industry can do to play a constructive role in doing something about childhood obesity?” Is there? I’m collecting opinions.
Yes, I think the food industry can help childhood obesity by altering their marketing habits and packaging. First, they should acknowledge that their products are (generally speaking) not health food, and quit trying to dupe consumers into thinking they can get significant health benefits from the highly processed, high fat, high sugar, low fiber, high sodium foods. To use these products as mainstays of the diet is just not healthy, but the current advertising suggests otherwise. I think a more responsible form of advertising would depict these products as incidental inclusions in a diet mainly consisting of fresh foods. (not what the processed food industry really wants to hear, I understand).
I also think their packaging needs to stop shouting health claims that the average consumer will not fully understand. The illustration of the “functional oreos” is a prime example. Those cookies are still just junk food cookies. To eat one or two occasionally as part of a well-chosen diet may not harm a child, but to encourage a child to think he/she is getting all those health benefits from eating a pile of cookies is wrong.
The packaging should not encourage overconsumption. For example, I know many people who think nothing of sitting down to watch tv with a large bag of chips or candies and eat half the bag. Who needs half a one pound bag of candy-coated chocolate candies? Who needs half a 2 pound bag of chips? The individual serving size packages are adequate.
Stop marketing “super-size” servings as “value” opportunities. Nobody needs a super-size processed food serving. We need to return the focus to modest food serving sizes as normal.
Comment by Sheila — March 4, 2008 @ 12:36 pm
If I could figure out how to e-mail you directly I would. é, on a Mac, is Opt-e together and another e. There are similar keyboard commands on the PC, but I can’t remember them. Might be Ctrl ‘ and the letter.
Comment by Gillian — March 4, 2008 @ 2:10 pm
As a member of this famous food industry… Yes, I think we can, should and will do something to contribute. It’s a long way to go however because of many factors.
One of them is economic: in a market economy, companies have to deliver a certain level of profitability. It’s unfortunately not an option if you’re a big company, and sometimes it feels like an impossible problem to solve (and make people like me want to flee to smaller companies). It’s not that we are evil, manipulative people; it’s that if objectives are not met at the end of the month, bonuses get lost… and then, jobs. And maintaining jobs is part of our responsibility.
(That would be less of an issue in a less liberal economy, but I don’t think that’s the part of the equation we want to talk about today.)
One factor is inertia. It’s amazing how some people tend to not realize that we have long switched from a situation where primary goals were food safety and value to a new health (and general sustainability) crisis. Inertia is true of consumers too: if people were willing to buy more healthful foods at reasonable prices, believe me, the industry would deliver. It will, in the end. The “price” part of the equation, which is huge (better quality costs more) is also a question of building critical mass and a better food supply chain.
One last factor that I often find is disregarded is ignorance. As consumers, we tend to think of marketers as well-informed. The sad reality is that not all of them are, and many of them believe in the “pixie dust” they’re selling. I’m quite sure you’ll find the heavier consumers of “functional food” among those who create them.
I’m aware I’m opening up to a lot of criticism here (not the least by putting “money” so high in my list of factors… And mentioning food safety. I can explain that more, but I’ve already been too long for a post), and I’d even add that it’s another factor of inertia in the industry: the feeling that you can not do right, the “to-be-perfect-or-nothing” syndrome. That said, thanks also for kicking our asses regularly: this keeps us moving forward. Please help us think of ways to get better, don’t let us entrench ourselves in a way of thinking that would oppose our interest and that of the society we live in. And I, among others, will keep making my colleagues read blogs like yours, and slowly raise their level of consciousness.
I like my colleagues. They’re not bad people: they will welcome incentives to do right, be them in marketing, procurement, manufacturing, S&T… Right now they’re fighting an uphill battle, and not all of them are fighting it, but it’s gaining momentum. I have hope.
So how can the food industry help: some ideas have been explored already (labeling, portion size, quality of ingredients, sponsoring of sporty events…), but not exploited fully. I’m sure there are other ideas out there (recommended frequency of consumption? age-appropriate sizes? etc). And finally — I will recognize most of the industry needs incentives, both carrots and sticks. Make it illegal to use certain substances, to make certain claims, etc. Tax that. And sponsor better initiatives with the proceeds. You’ll speed things up with a realistic rather than a “holier than you” attitude.
Please note that these opinions are purely personal. I welcome any further discussion as long as there’s no “finger pointing” and no attempt to involve my employer…
Comment by Charlotte — March 4, 2008 @ 2:23 pm
Great comment, Charlotte–
Trying not to be a pessimist, but a “realist,” I don’t think there is a lot that industrial food companies can do to address our problematic relationship with the foods they produce. There are a few ideas like smaller serving sizes, better oversight over health claims, restricted advertising to children or more warnings. Some of these may make a difference at the margins. But in the end, our dominant economic culture—supported by our political culture—wants to create profit, advertise in sensational and creative ways, give consumers “more for less” and maximize distribution. We have designed our systems to produce surfeit. The problem is structural.
In the end, initiatives like smaller serving sizes, etc. are really palliatives—and pose dangers of their own. To the extent that people believe that companies are “looking out for them”—that companies can, will and should manage their health—the entrenchment of industrial food is secured, not weakened.
An off the wall idea: what if we limited distribution by time? Potato chips would only be available around the 4th of July, canned spaghetti sauce only in the Winter, candy bars only around Valentine’s and Halloween, ice-cream only in August? This might integrate these foods into a cycle which would highlight the concepts of appropriateness and seasonality.
Government could conceivably step in and change the size, calories, taste or composition of potato chips, etc. But I find it unlikely because people wouldn’t stand for it—even if done in their own best interest. In order to make industrial food truly healthy—even as part of a broader lifestyle—government would have to limit people’s freedom, access, product development, advertising, and a host of other variables. It won’t happen: fundamentally, a critical mass of people want the freedom to make bad decisions, and neither business nor most politicians really want the government to manage business to that extent.
There is a solution to the overconsumption of industrial food; the solution is countervailing institutions that forge a new culture/relationship to food. This blog is part of that solution. Organic grocery stores, CSAs, and farmers’ markets have also sprung up as a response to the obvious sickness and degradation industrial food causes. Many people now follow these food issues in the newspaper, in podcasts and even read books on food that aren’t cook books—some of which are even NY Times best sellers.
It’s tougher slogging that trying to work with industry on some new initiative, but the victories aren’t Pyrrhic.
Comment by Fentry — March 4, 2008 @ 8:42 pm
é can also be generated via holding down the “alt” key and entering “130″ on your num pad.
Comment by rj — March 4, 2008 @ 9:59 pm
I think that the food industry should fund edible gardens in public schools.
Comment by Maya — March 6, 2008 @ 8:05 am
“Is there anything the food industry can do to play a constructive role in doing something about childhood obesity?”
Interesting question. That suggests we (or you) already KNOW what causes childhood obesity.
And that we KNOW how to correct it.
If, as you say, it is merely a behavioral problem in that children eat too much, they eat too much junk food, and they don’t move enough, then the answer should be simple.
Food companies should encourage children to eat less, to eat less junk food, and to not be so lazy.
It is, as you always say, all about calories. Get them to eat less, and burn more.
Comment by Anton — March 6, 2008 @ 4:11 pm
I think the problem is more multifactorial. From an over abundance of corn due to government policies to children picking up habits from their ignorant parents to doctors’ struggling with how to tell a kid they are obese and is in terribly poor health to technology influencing one to live a sedentary life.
Make no bones about it, we are talking about the US. We serve as a laughing matter to those abroad.
Something more fundamental has to be changed and that would start with eradicating this extreme laziness with respect to activity and thought that plagues americans.
It was aristotle that said moderation in all things. Americans could learn a lot from him.
Comment by rj — March 6, 2008 @ 4:46 pm
“Is there anything the food industry can do to play a constructive role in doing something about childhood obesity?”
Well, perhaps the first thing would be to Stop Making Greed (I mean, Profits) the #1 Priority. It seems quite possible for corporations to greatly improve the health or sustainability of a product with only a slight reduction in the profits made on that item. But I get the impression that this is never a thought to 98% of the corporations out there.
Comment by Jack at Fork & Bottle — March 6, 2008 @ 5:59 pm
Good suggestions, all.
But Marion’s viewpoint always points to a behavioral problem. It is not a nutritionist’s problem, or a dietician’s problem. They already know what the cause of obesity is. There is not need to debate that.
The only thing left is is essentially a cultural or psychological or communications problem. Why ask nutrionists about that?
This is a political and policy question. How do we make people eat less and move more? This is not about biology.
Comment by Anton — March 6, 2008 @ 7:31 pm
“It is not a nutritionist’s problem, or a dietician’s problem. They already know what the cause of obesity is. “
Am I the only that is under the impression that 98%+ of the nutritionists and dieticians haven’t a clue - about anything?!
Comment by Jack at Fork & Bottle — March 7, 2008 @ 12:05 am
Well I’ll speak up for Dr. Nestle here: an interest in nutrition is also cultural–and can have political implications as well. This blog is part of a counter-cultural paradigm, isn’t it?
My depression-era grandfather “worried” about calories, not nutrition, as evidenced by his food choices. Although one must beware narrow-minded “nutritionism”, interest in nutrition, as opposed to calories or feeling full, or pure taste, or preparation, or cost, can have a beneficial effect on health.
Isn’t it good to reflect upon the properties of what one consumes–quality as well as quantity? Doesn’t this reflection lead to cultural habits?
Comment by Fentry — March 8, 2008 @ 11:02 am
rj said: Something more fundamental has to be changed.
Yes. Industry won’t do change. Their motivation is profit, pure and simple. More profit at just about any cost. That isn’t going to change so there is no point tilting at food industry windmills.
However, we, the people, need to take back our government so that it serves our needs, not the needs of corporations (gosh, I am getting so libertarian in my middle age!).
Our Farm Bill is an excellent example. The Farm Bill serves *not* our need for good nutritious food and sustainable, diversified family farms; it serves corporate profits exclusively. Subsidies of corn, soy, and wheat need to be eliminated. The industrial food industry cannot exploit us with their ersatz food products as easily if they didn’t have access to abundant, cheap commodity foods that should not play the large role in the diet the they currently do.
If our government truly served our needs, there would be no tricky rules that favor centralized, long distance produce (primarily CA and FL) over local, seasonal produce. Granted, some regions have shorter growing seasons and local produce would be in short supply at certain times, but a level playing field would also at least give local farmers a fighting chance to serve their communities for some of the year.
I’m not holding my breath, though.
Comment by Anna — March 8, 2008 @ 1:29 pm
I think you should start to use an accents on your own name. It would give it a certain je-ne-sais-quoi: Mariön Nestlé.
Comment by Mark — March 9, 2008 @ 7:59 pm
Has anyone ever noticed that the Farm Bill subsidy pyramid and the FDA food guide pyramid from another government agency down the street are almost exact inverses of each other?
Does the right hand know what the left hand is doing?
Comment by Fentry — March 10, 2008 @ 7:32 pm
Worse than that. They are both from the same agency: USDA. Conflict of interest anyone?
Comment by Marion — March 10, 2008 @ 7:54 pm
“Is there anything the food industry can do to play a constructive role in doing something about childhood obesity?”
No.
Wait, yes. Donate money to a “Reduce Childhood Obesity” campaign. And write it off.
The “food” industry is about making money, it’s not about making people healthy. That’s ok. They have a right to make money. But I wouldn’t look to them for health advice.
Comment by Bix — March 11, 2008 @ 4:06 pm