Read the Nestl article excerpt. Then use the Six-Step Process to analyze and recommend how Nestl should move forward after the decision. Put yourselves in the shoes of a high-ranking executive at Nestl making a recommendation to the Nestl board. Apply the stakeholder theory in step five and skip step seven for now. Keep your analysis brief (no more than 2 pages).

1. Identify the Moral Issue

2. Identify Additional Facts Helpful to Making a Decision

3. Identify the Alternatives Available to Apply to the Problem

4. Identify the Personal Impacts on the Decision Maker

5. Apply the stakeholder contemporary theories of business ethics

6. Conclude with a decision

As Cynthia McMullan maneuvers the crowded aisles of her local superstore, her seven-year-old son whines about the length of his mothers shopping excursion. Much to her own dismay, Cynthias son has already wreaked havoc during her afternoon grocery run. Upon entering the store, little Johnny McMullan dropped a can of olives from a promotional stand. A few minutes later, he stepped on a box of strawberries and proceeded to leave fruity footprints throughout the produce section.

Cynthia, usually a calm and collected mother, is beginning to lose her patience. After a long day at work, she is too tired to adequately reprimand her son for his inappropriate antics. Johnny is growing impatient and begins to sing his favorite cartoon theme song in an infinite loop. By the time little Johnny begins the ninth repetition of the jingle, Cynthia snaps.

Cut it out, Johnny! Mommy had a very long day at work and needs to finish shopping before daddy gets home. Youre really getting on my nerves and I need you to cool down. Ill make you a deal. Go to the candy aisle and choose something you want. If you behave for the rest of the time were here, Ill buy it for you when we check out.

Within seconds, Johnny has disappeared from the frozen goods aisle, leaving his mother in a state of newfound calm. Meanwhile, Johnny scans the numerous sweets available to him. After a long period of deliberation, he snatches a Nestl Crunch bar and sprints back to his mothers side. He throws the bar into the shopping cart and remains silent for the remainder of the shopping trip. He wants nothing more than to enjoy a Nestl bar.

On the other side of the world, an African boy slightly older than Johnny accidentally slices his hand with a machete he was given to retrieve cocoa beans. He looks for something to wipe the blood off his hand but finds nothing. He considers walking back to his supervisor to get medical care, but fears returning without a sufficient cocoa yield. He thinks about the dire situation he has been forced into and tears run down his face. The young boy knows he is worse off on his own, and therefore cannot run from the injustice of slavery. He is stuck. The boy sighs and continues to hack at the cocoa plants in front of him. His blood and tears trickle onto the sweet beans he is harvesting.

When Cynthia finally gets home after a long drive from the superstore, Johnny starts acting up and rubs his strawberry-coated sneakers on an antique rug. Cynthia sits him down and disciplines him as she wipes the soles of his shoes with a washcloth. Johnny demands the Crunch bar he earned be given to him immediately. Cynthia defeated by tiredness, caves in. She begrudgingly hands the candy bar to Johnny and heads to the kitchen to prepare dinner. He could have it so much worse, she thought to herself.

As of March 2013, Nestl Company was the worlds largest food distributor. Specializing in everything from snack foods to health supplements, Nestle is a huge multinational company that has branded itself as a healthy and reputable player within the food distribution industry.

Within the spectrum of Nestls many market offerings exists Nestl Chocolate, sometimes referred to as Nestl Confectionery. This division of Nestl, one that competes with companies such as Cadbury and Mars, is internationally known for products such as the Crunch bar, the KitKat bar, and the Butterfinger bar.

In 1998, pressure from social activists led to the widespread investigation of the cocoa harvesting industry. As a result of the investigation, allegations arose suggesting that large chocolate companies were using child labor in production, and moreover, that some child labor was a product of enslavement. These allegations led to further investigation and more bad news for large chocolate companies. By 2000, it had been revealed that many of those working in the cocoa industry were trafficked or coerced into unfair labor conditions on West African plantations. While the legitimacy of these reports was questioned, the breadth and scope of the investigation surrounding the cocoa industry led to serious problems for large-scale chocolate manufacturers.

During this time, Nestl was involved with cocoa plantations under investigation. Nestl, which was responsible for the purchasing of approximately 10 percent of all global cocoa output, obtained more than one-third of its cocoa from the Ivory Coast. The investigations surrounding enslavement and child labor within the cocoa industry focused largely on the Ivory Coast, as the country is known for unfair labor practices and lenient trade rules that allow for the exploitation of workers. While Nestl faced little scrutiny during the early 2000s, it was aware of the investigations taking place as well as the potential for reputational damage to the firm.

In 2005, the International Labor Rights Fund filed a lawsuit against Nestle claiming that young children had been trafficked to the Ivory Coast by the company in order to work on cocoa plantations. Although the lawsuit was later dismissed, the public attention surrounding the case propelled Nestl into the spotlight and branded the company as one that exploited young workers in West Africa.

In the late 2000s, NGOs and social activists targeted Nestl utilizing the idea that it is most effective to fight an industrys worst offender. Suddenly, Nestl Chocolate experienced widespread boycotts of its products and large demonstrations in metropolitan areas. At this point, the company knew it had to react. In 2009, Nestl consulted the Fair Labor Association and asked for guidance on the issue of slave labor in the Ivory Coast. The FLA conducted an investigation on Nestls involvement and sent back a report detailing its objectives for the company. In an effort to form a strategic ally, Nestl publicized its response to the report and outlined a plan for improvement based on the FLAs findings. Among the changes promised by Nestl were a better definition of employee roles, better communication of labor expectations, improved grievance and remediation procedures, and perhaps most importantly, the mapping and monitoring of Nestls entire supply chain. In taking on this last measure, Nestl aimed to form relationships with all suppliers and track the flow of labor in West Africa. In 2012, Nestl became a member of the Fair Labor Association, demonstrating a commitment to fair working conditions within in its operations.

As of late 2012, however, both the Fair Labor Association and critics of Nestls continued use of child labor claimed that Nestl was still facilitating the exploitation of workers in the Ivory Coast. As most of the companys monitoring policies and supply chain models were opaque and made private, some firmly believed the company was creating an image that represented a false reality.

Nestls Reaction

Although Nestl aimed to reduce activist pressures and make meaningful change in West Africa by partnering with the Fair Labor Association, the company saw little change in public opinion during the year following the implementation of the FLAs recommendations. Small and large pressure groups alike continued to attack Nestl, asserting that the company had created a mirage that allowed for continued abuse of workers.

During this time, Nestl felt threatened by the potentially disastrous allegations made against the company but did not take further action for a number of reasons. First and foremost, the company did not see itself as the only responsible factor contributing to the problem. As slave-free chocolate groups cited Hershey and Cadbury as offenders in the same region, Nestl saw its participation as a contribution to the issue instead of the sole reason for it. Furthermore, the company believed that its actions reflected the best interest of the small African country. While many activist groups claimed that Nestl was not investing enough time or money to make serious social change in the region, Nestls long-standing presence within the region gave the company little reason to be optimistic. Shortly after the first lawsuit was filed against Nestl Chocolate, the chief executive of the entire corporation made this idea clear.

Nestl is not the owner of any plantation, said Peter Brabeck-Letmathe. There might be a lot of other human rights abuses than just the ones that have been picked up.

While it may be easy to dismiss Brabeck-Lemathes claim as a desperate business maneuver intended to sway public opinion of Nestls actions, there is legitimacy in his words that demand consideration. According to a report by the U.S. State Department published during the 2000s, the Ivory Coast is a country where an estimated 215,000 children live on the streets at a given time. The report also lists numerous forms of observed corruption, most notably the performing of sexual acts within schools in return for passing grades. These problems are made worse by the fact the Ivory Coast lacks a law against human trafficking.

Referring to the country as basically a civil war situation, Nestls chief executive made clear that he doubted his companys ability to make change within the region. Investing large sums of money and time not only threatened the company financially in the short-term but also posed a long-term investment risk in that any positive societal change would likely require sustained investment for a number of years. As Nestl felt falsely accused in many cases, the company wondered which route would be more expensive: doing nothing and suffering profit loss from reputational damage or investing for social change in an uncertain political and legal environment

Perhaps most importantly, Nestls lack of further response was intended to deny guilt and to shift blame away from the company. In taking on additional action in the Ivory Coast, Nestl felt it was accepting a burden it was not entirely responsible for. In addition to bearing costs from the corporate side, improvement plans would also draw public attention. While the company knew it could leverage any socially responsible action in a targeted marketing campaign, the decision on whether to take action in the Ivory Coast remained extremely difficult.

An Interesting Dilemma

Because West Africa was a critical component of Nestl Chocolates supply chain, and thus able to produce its product, the company did not see an exit from the region as a viable strategy. While the company considered abandoning the region entirely and investing in less controversial harvesting partners, the company also feared what would happen to young children on plantations once the company exited. As many children in the Ivory Coast long for basic resources and shelter, Nestl urged the public to consider the context surrounding the ethical issue of worker exploitation. Although it is difficult to understand, Nestl felt that a secure life with minimal or no pay was better than a fight for survival in what can be a very unstable region.

Since its inception, Nestl has aimed to positively influence the social environment in which they operate as responsible corporate citizens, with due regard for those environmental standards and societal aspirations which improve quality of life. Promising to provide quality food to help people of all ages thrive in life, the company prides itself as a reputable and socially responsible company. With attention surrounding worker abuse in West Africa rising, the corporation realized that its corporate credo and reputation were on the line.

Regardless of guilt, Nestl found itself battling the perception that it provided for children in International markets at the expense of children suffering from slavery and illegal working conditions. Moreover, the company needed to defend itself against the exploitation of children in the first place. As young children in West Africa are an especially vulnerable party, Nestls involvement in any form of abuse looked even more irresponsible. With public perception of Nestls reputation in jeopardy, the company knew it needed to do something. Although the company was working to track all components of its West African supply chains, the public demanded more. With critics growing in number and charges increasing in severity, the company feared that proving it was slave-free was no longer enough.

Management weighed its options. Was there a solution that was beneficial for all parties involved? Was there a way to make lasting social change in the Ivory Coast without breaking the bank? Would socially responsible corporate action provide a return on investment or would it draw negative public attention from previously unaware consumer segments? Most importantly, did the company need to do anything at all if it wasnt responsible for the dilemma in the first place? Management considered the issue at hand and thought about these questions. What was the company going to do?