Nestle v Greenpeace

Over the past few months Nestle has been caught in a war with green campaigners Greenpeace which has been waged on social media websites, after Nestle was sprung for using ingredients supplied from an Indonesian company Sinar Mas - infamous for its efforts in rapidly levelling tropical rainforests. Greenpeace made a mock Kit-Kat advertisement which focused on the plight of the Orang-Utan, suggesting Kit-Kat consumers were in effect eating the finger of the animal each time they took a break.

Every fact that Nestle used to defend itself from the blatant distortions used in the campaign only served to heighten the focus on the issue and to spread the fire across a range of sites which engage billions of people daily. Time-wasting may be how employers and parents may view social media platforms, but a viral infection can spread globally on Facebook, Twitter and YouTube within minutes. It won’t matter if the campaign such as this infringes copyrights, twists facts or offends mothers, when it gains such instant global attention; the only action available to the target is to change something big - quickly. Use of these platforms is expanding rapidly but just how marketers can best harness and combat the powerful channel remains a challenge.

The global food industry’s largest brand owner was in this case forced to immediately drop the supplier from its business. It went further in late May to increase its efforts in sourcing raw materials and ingredients from more “sustainable” suppliers. Nestle reportedly buys just 0.7% of world palm oil production, but the company's decision could impact the world ingredients market as several other companies it uses as ingredients suppliers and intermediaries will be forced to follow suit or cop the same treatment. Currently it is estimated that only 18% of palm oil production – one of the cheap alternatives to dairy ingredients in some food manufacturing – is “sustainable”.

It matters not that Nestle took a little while to formally address to big issue that was actually at the centre of the Greenpeace attacks. but has countered by raising the stakes and creating a new standard, partnering with The Forest Trust (TFT), a global non-profit organisation, which will audit the adherence to sustainability guidelines for palm oil. A string of major food manufactures, including Kraft, owners of Cadbury, which was focus of attention in NSW and New Zealand over the use of oil in chocolates, have similar pledges.

It also matters less to the green activists that Nestlé has now committed to a four-year plan to address the palm oil problem. Nestle will ensure that in 4 years, all of the palm oil it uses comes from sustainable sources. By that time, commercial quantities will be available to the market and practices in supplying regions will have been overhauled and audited.

However, did the campaign have any effect on the market for the product that was selected as the target? Just as quickly as the viral message spread to the world, it was forgotten. Nestle reported that sales of Kit-Kat were not affected by the campaign, a fact which Greenpeace also acknowledges. As with much of the emotion about food, what a consumer will express as an aspiration in their choices rarely gets into the shopping basket.