As previously stated in an earlier post, Nestle initially refused to assume any responsibility for their aggressive advertising and even denied the impact of the boycott having an effect on their finances. However, as a 1984 IndustryWeek article states, Nestle suffered a loss as much as $40 million because of the US boycott against its products. Moreover, in the past three years (1981-1984), in an effort to reestablish a positive reputation for itself, Nestle has become the leader in implementing a humane marketing code for baby formula.

• One of Nestle’s first steps to rebuilding its image was to endorse the World Health Organization’s (WHO) Code of Marketing for Breast Milk Substitutes from the day that it was passed in 1981, which turned out to be a $20 million endeavor. Nestle adopted all of the rules and conditions that were asked of them.
• Next, Nestle sought out a group that would honestly investigate the issue with baby deaths in developing countries. To that end, Nestle chose the Methodist Task Force on Infant Formula, a group that was undecided whether to officially join the boycott, to assist in helping Nestle rebuild its credibility.
• However, Nestle’s most effective strategy was “to establish, in May 1982, a ten-member panel of medical experts, clergymen, civic leaders, and experts in international policy to monitor to compliance with the WHO Code and to investigate complaints against its marketing practices.”

With that being said, the International Nestle Boycott Commission (INBC) although not completely satisfied with Nestle’s efforts, admit to some progress on Nestle’s part.

Source:

JOANI NELSON-HORCHLER, JOANI. “Fighting a Boycott.” IndustryWeek 23 Jan. 1984. Web. <http://www.lexisnexis.com.remote.baruch.cuny.edu/lnacui2api/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T17256998238&format=GNBFI&sort=BOOLEAN&startDocNo=126&resultsUrlKey=29_T17256998242&cisb=22_T17256998241&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=7995&docNo=144>