Nestles Baby Formula and Third World Countries

Nestles Baby Formula and Third World Countries Nestle’s Baby Formula Controversy Nestle’s baby formula marketing in Third World countries has become a conventional case which illustrates social responsibility and business ethics. The company entered the market of Third World countries without changing its strategies and marketing techniques. This was one of the company’s major faults which led to the international scandal and boycott of Nestle’s products in Third World countries.Advertising We will write a custom report sample on Nestle’s Baby Formula and Third World Countries specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More The company was accused of promotion of its products and discouraging breastfeeding among woman in developing countries (Davidson 2009). Various reports and surveys were conducted. Health care employees reported that the use of Nestle products led to malnutrition and even deaths in many cases (Cateora 2011). Nestle’s Responsibility It is necessary to note that even though the products were boycotted, many people advocated Nestle’s products. For instance, these people claimed that malnutrition and high rate of infant deaths was caused by social and economic situation in the countries, rather than by the use of Nestle products. Nestle also argued that in many cases women misused Nestle products which led to health problems or fatal cases. Besides, Nestle also stressed that the company never discouraged breastfeeding among woman in any country. On the contrary, the company always articulated the idea that breastfeeding is the best option. Nonetheless, Nestle also admitted that some of their marketing techniques needed rethinking (Frederick 2002, p.233). For instance, such practice as distribution of free products among women or nurses was seen as inappropriate. It goes without saying that Nestle can be regarded as an example of the multinational which can be socially responsible. Thus, when the company ackno wledged that some of its practices were unethical or wrongful, it started reshaping its marketing strategies. Nestle followed the rules set by WHO and made a decision to start marketing its products only when particular laws and regulations would be enacted. Admittedly, this is an ethical and responsible position. Recommendations to Nestle However, the contemporary world brings new challenges to the fore. Thus, spread of HIV infection in Third World countries is the issue which needs drastic measures. In this respect, Nestle’s products can become one of the strategies which can reduce the rate of this infection spread. Reportedly, breastfeeding is one of the ways of HIV infection transmission.Advertising Looking for report on business economics? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More This matter has been one of the most disputable issues during the past decades (Moland et al. 2010). Scientists try to discover new wa ys to prevent this kind of transmission (Iliff et al. 2005). Apparently, there is one easy step to be undertaken. Thus, Nestle can address world public and assure Third World countries as well as WHO and developed countries that the company will start a campaign aimed at raising awareness concerning proper use of Nestle’s baby formula. For instance, the company can start up an advertising campaign. However, the major attention should be paid to the proper use of the product rather than the product itself. It is also essential to stress the benefits of breastfeeding. Admittedly, the company should present new ways of its products marketing. Nestle should initiate new discussions concerning distribution of its products in Third World countries. It can be helpful to implement new surveys in the area. The company should also provide reports on its products safety. In this way the company can contribute to prevention of HIV transmission. It will also help to rehabilitate baby prod ucts worldwide. Reference List Cateora, PR, Gilly, MC, and Graham, JL 2011, Ch. 5. Culture, management style, and business systems, in Cateora et al. (eds), International Marketing, McGraw Hill, Berkshire, UK, pp. 146-148. Davidson, K 2009, Ethical concerns at the bottom of the pyramid: where CSR meets BOP, Journal of International Business Ethics, vol. 2 no. 1, pp. 22-32. Frederick, R 2002, A companion to business ethics, John Wiley Sons, Oxford.Advertising We will write a custom report sample on Nestle’s Baby Formula and Third World Countries specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More Iliff, PJ, Piwoz, EG, Tavengwa, NV, Zunguza, CD, Marinda, ET, Nathoo, KJ, Moulton, LH, Ward, BJ, the ZVITAMBO study group, Humphrey, JH 2005, ‘Early exclusive breastfeeding reduces the risk of postnatal HIV-1 transmission and increases HIV-free survival’, AIDS, vol. 19 no. 7, pp. 699-708. Moland, KM, Paoli, MM, Sellen, DW, Esterik, P, Lesh abari, SC, Blystad, A 2010, ‘Breastfeeding and HIV: experiences from a decade of prevention of postnatal HIV transmission in sub-Saharan Africa’, International Breastfeeding Journal, vol. 5, no. 10, pp. 1-7.

Siege of Paris in the Franco-Prussian War

Siege of Paris in the Franco-Prussian War The Siege of Paris was fought September 19, 1870 to January 28, 1871 and was a key battle of the Franco-Prussian War (1870-1871). With the beginning of the Franco-Prussian War in July 1870, French forces suffered a string of serious reverses at the hands of the Prussians. Following their decisive victory at the Battle of Sedan on September 1, the Prussians quickly advanced on Paris and encircled the city. Laying siege to city, the invaders were able to contain Paris garrison and defeated several attempted breakout attempts. Seeking to reach a decision, the Prussians began shelling the city in January 1871. Three days later the Paris surrendered. The Prussian triumph effectively ended the conflict and led to the unification of Germany. Background Following their triumph over the French at the Battle of Sedan on September 1, 1870, Prussian forces began marching on Paris. Moving swiftly, the Prussian 3rd Army along with the Army of Meuse encountered little resistance as they neared the city. Personally guided by King Wilhelm I and his chief of staff, Field Marshal Helmuth von Moltke, Prussian troops began encircling the city. Within Paris, the citys governor, General Louis Jules Trochu, had massed around 400,000 soldiers, half of which were untested National Guardsmen. Count Helmuth von Moltke. Photograph Source: Public Domain As the pincers closed, a French force under General Joseph Vinoy attacked Crown Prince Fredericks troops south of the city at Villeneuve Saint Georges on September 17. Attempting to save a supply dump in the area, Vinoys men were driven back by massed artillery fire. The following day the railroad to Orleans was cut and Versailles occupied by the 3rd Army. By the 19th, the Prussians had completely encircled the city beginning the siege. In the Prussian headquarters a debate was had over how best to take the city. Siege of Paris Conflict: Franco-Prussian War (1870-1871)Dates: September 19, 1870-January 28, 1871Armies Commanders:PrussiaField Marshal Helmuth von MoltkeField Marshal Leonhard Graf von Blumenthal240,000 menFranceGovernor Louis Jules TrochuGeneral Joseph Vinoyapprox. 200,000 regularsapprox. 200,000 militiaCasualties:Prussians: 24,000 dead and wounded, 146,000 captured, approximately 47,000 civilian casualtiesFrench: 12,000 killed and wounded The Siege Begins Prussian Chancellor Otto von Bismarck argued in favor of immediately shelling the city into submission. This was countered by the sieges commander, Field Marshal Leonhard Graf von Blumenthal who believed shelling the city to be inhumane and against the rules of war. He also argued that a quick victory would lead to peace before the remaining French field armies could be destroyed. With these in place, it was likely that the war would be renewed in a short time. After hearing arguments from both sides, William elected to allow Blumenthal to proceed with the siege as planned. Within the city, Trochu remained on the defensive. Lacking faith in his National Guardsmen, he hoped that the Prussians would attack allowing his men to fight from within the citys defenses. As it quickly became apparent that the Prussians were not going to attempt to storm the city, Trochu was forced to reconsider his plans. On September 30, he ordered Vinoy to demonstrate and test the Prussian lines west of the city at Chevilly. Striking the Prussian VI Corps with 20,000 men, Vinoy was easily repulsed. Two weeks later, on October 13, another attack was made at Chà ¢tillon. St-Cloud after the fighting at Chà ¢tillon, October 1870. Public Domain   French Efforts to Break the Siege Though French troops succeeded in taking the town from the Bavarian II Corps, they were eventually driven back by Prussian artillery. On October 27, General Carey de Bellemare, commander of the fort at Saint Denis, attacked the town of Le Bourget. Though he had no orders from Trochu to move forward, his attack was successful and French troops occupied the town. Though it was of little value, Crown Prince Albert ordered it retaken and Prussian forces drove the French out on the 30th. With morale in Paris low and made worse by news of the French defeat at Metz, Trochu planned a large sortie for November 30. Consisting of 80,000 men, led by General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot, the attack struck at Champigny, Creteil and Villiers. In the resulting Battle of Villiers, Ducrot succeeded in driving back the Prussians and taking Champigny and Creteil. Pressing across the Marne River towards Villiers, Ducrot was unable to breakthrough the last lines of Prussian defenses. Having suffered over 9,000 casualties, he was forced to withdraw to Paris by December 3. With food supplies low and communication with the outside world reduced to sending letters by balloon, Trochu planned a final breakout attempt. Prussian troops outside of Paris, 1870.   Bundesarchiv, Bild 183-H26707 / CC-BY-SA 3.0 The City Falls On January 19, 1871, a day after William had been crowned kaiser (emperor) at Versailles, Trochu assaulted the Prussian positions at Buzenval. Though Trochu took the village of St. Cloud, his supporting attacks failed, leaving his position isolated. At the end of the day Trochu was forced to fall back having taken 4,000 casualties. As a result of the failure, he resigned as governor and turned command over to Vinoy. Though they had contained the French, many in the Prussian high command were becoming impatient with the siege and the increasing duration of the war. With the war adversely affecting the Prussian economy and disease beginning to break out on the siege lines, William ordered that a solution be found. On January 25, he directed von Moltke to consult with Bismarck on all military operations. After doing so, Bismarck immediately ordered that Paris be shelled with the armys heavy Krupp siege guns. Following three days of bombardment, and with the citys population starving, Vinoy surrendered the city. Aftermath In the fighting for Paris, the French suffered 24,000 dead and wounded, 146,000 captured, as well as approximately 47,000 civilian casualties. Prussian losses were around 12,000 dead and wounded. The fall of Paris effectively ended the Franco-Prussian War as French forces were ordered to cease fighting following the citys surrender. The Government of National Defense signed the Treaty of Frankfurt on May 10, 1871, officially ending the war. The war itself had completed the unification of Germany and resulted in the transfer of Alsace and Lorraine to Germany.