Methodists criticised for opening way for investment in NestlÈ
-25/11/05
Campaigners against the practices of the controversial company NestlÈ have said that the reasoning behind the Methodist Church’s decision to open the way for investment in the company is ill-judged and likely to harm rather than help the campaign to protect infant health.
The Methodist Churchís Joint Advisory Committee on Ethical Investment (JACEI) announced yesterday that it had cleared the way for the Churchís investment agency the Central Finance Board (CFB) to invest in NestlÈ.
NestlÈ is the target of a boycott in 20 countries because campaigners say it aggressively markets baby foods, breaking World Health Assembly marketing requirements and contributing to the death and suffering of infants around the world.
Campaigners say that the Methodist Church has previously been a strong supporter of action against NestlÈ. They cite a Methodist Church conference resolution in 1992 which reaffirmed “its support of the action taken by the Division of Social Responsibility through Baby Milk Action in Britain and IBFAN internationally”. It urged Methodists “to inform themselves about the issues involved and to share in bringing pressure to bear on the relevant manufactures – Nestle in Britain particularly.”
The Methodist church however denies that it has ever been a strong supporter of the campaign against NestlÈ. In 2000 in another motion the church affirmed that it was “not aligned with either side in the disputes between Baby Milk Action and Nestle”. The Conference encouraged Methodists, local churches and Methodist groups to study all the issues and “to act accordingly.”
The Church committee has now said that, while there are still areas of ethical concern relating to marketing and promotion of breast milk substitute issues, there is no suggestion that the nature of NestlÈís business is inherently unethical, and there are insufficient reasons to avoid an investment in NestlÈ on ethical grounds.
Anthea Cox, Methodist Co-ordinating Secretary for Public Life and Social Justice, said, ìWe do not believe that NestlÈ are perfect by any means. But we think that the option of making a financial investment in the company will enable CFB to press NestlÈ further than the Church could achieve by other means.î
The Methodist Church says it has sought to listen to and engage positively with both NestlÈ and campaigners such as Baby Milk Action.
The Methodist Relief and Development Fund (MRDF) has in the recent past given grants to Baby Milk Action to support specific projects, and Anthea Cox paid tribute to its work. ìBaby Milk Action and other groups have performed a great service in researching NestlÈís activities and keeping this issue in the public eye,î she said. ìIf CFB did invest, one consequence would be to allow closer scrutiny of NestlÈ.î
The Committee recommended that the CFB should seek to meet the CEO of NestlÈ, and also that it should have annual meetings with senior executives to continue addressing the companyís record. The CFB, which is independent of the Church and has funds of about £1 billion under its control, pursues a policy of active engagement as part of its ethical investment, under which it uses its position as a shareholder to demand improvements in companiesí attitudes towards development, fair trade, the environment and workersí rights.
A similar strategy has been pursued by the Church of England which ended its boycott of NestlÈ in the 1990s. It was suggested that instead of applying pressure through the boycott, the Church would use its investments in NestlÈ to enter into “dialogue” with the company to encourage it to change its ways.
But campaigners say that have yet to be informed of any progress emerging from the Church’s strategy of engaging NestlÈ in “dialogue”.
The York Council of Churches has even accepted a donation of 100,000 pounds from NestlÈ.
After initiating a review process in 2002, the Methodist Committee held a consultation in November 2004 to consider the ethical suitability of holding shares in NestlÈ. As part of its work, the Committee heard submissions from both sides of the debate. Both NestlÈ and Baby Milk Action took part in the consultation, offering their advice and response to the briefing paper and the committee is grateful for their contributions.
Anthea Cox said: ìThis is not a decision the Committee made lightly or without thorough investigation. We are fully aware of NestlÈís record in the past, and that, despite improvements, there are still reported violations of the WHO Code on the sale and marketing of baby milk. But companies are accountable to their shareholders, and if CFB invests it will, as usual, use that actively to press the company not only on the issue of baby milk, but in other areas as well. We encourage people to continue to be aware of the issues and to act accordingly. In our continued work on this issue we will consult with a number of groups and as a member of the Interagency Group on Breastfeeding Monitoring.î
The decision of the Committee does not mean that CFB will make an immediate investment in NestlÈ.
Campaigners against the practices of the controversial company NestlÈ have said that the reasoning behind the Methodist Church’s decision to open the way for investment in the company is ill-judged and likely to harm rather than help the campaign to protect infant health.
The Methodist Church’s Joint Advisory Committee on Ethical Investment (JACEI) announced yesterday that it had cleared the way for the Church’s investment agency the Central Finance Board (CFB) to invest in NestlÈ.
NestlÈ is the target of a boycott in 20 countries because campaigners say it aggressively markets baby foods, breaking World Health Assembly marketing requirements and contributing to the death and suffering of infants around the world.
Campaigners say that the Methodist Church has previously been a strong supporter of action against NestlÈ. They cite a Methodist Church conference resolution in 1992 which reaffirmed “its support of the action taken by the Division of Social Responsibility through Baby Milk Action in Britain and IBFAN internationally”. It urged Methodists “to inform themselves about the issues involved and to share in bringing pressure to bear on the relevant manufactures – Nestle in Britain particularly.”
The Methodist church however denies that it has ever been a strong supporter of the campaign against NestlÈ. In 2000 in another motion the church affirmed that it was “not aligned with either side in the disputes between Baby Milk Action and Nestle”. The Conference encouraged Methodists, local churches and Methodist groups to study all the issues and “to act accordingly.”
The Church committee has now said that, while there are still areas of ethical concern relating to marketing and promotion of breast milk substitute issues, there is no suggestion that the nature of NestlÈ’s business is inherently unethical, and there are insufficient reasons to avoid an investment in NestlÈ on ethical grounds.
Anthea Cox, Methodist Co-ordinating Secretary for Public Life and Social Justice, said, ‘We do not believe that NestlÈ are perfect by any means. But we think that the option of making a financial investment in the company will enable CFB to press NestlÈ further than the Church could achieve by other means.’
The Methodist Church says it has sought to listen to and engage positively with both NestlÈ and campaigners such as Baby Milk Action.
The Methodist Relief and Development Fund (MRDF) has in the recent past given grants to Baby Milk Action to support specific projects, and Anthea Cox paid tribute to its work. ‘Baby Milk Action and other groups have performed a great service in researching NestlÈ’s activities and keeping this issue in the public eye,’ she said. ‘If CFB did invest, one consequence would be to allow closer scrutiny of NestlÈ.’
The Committee recommended that the CFB should seek to meet the CEO of NestlÈ, and also that it should have annual meetings with senior executives to continue addressing the company’s record. The CFB, which is independent of the Church and has funds of about £1 billion under its control, pursues a policy of active engagement as part of its ethical investment, under which it uses its position as a shareholder to demand improvements in companies’ attitudes towards development, fair trade, the environment and workers’ rights.
A similar strategy has been pursued by the Church of England which ended its boycott of NestlÈ in the 1990s. It was suggested that instead of applying pressure through the boycott, the Church would use its investments in NestlÈ to enter into “dialogue” with the company to encourage it to change its ways.
But campaigners say that have yet to be informed of any progress emerging from the Church’s strategy of engaging NestlÈ in “dialogue”.
The York Council of Churches has even accepted a donation of 100,000 pounds from NestlÈ.
After initiating a review process in 2002, the Methodist Committee held a consultation in November 2004 to consider the ethical suitability of holding shares in NestlÈ. As part of its work, the Committee heard submissions from both sides of the debate. Both NestlÈ and Baby Milk Action took part in the consultation, offering their advice and response to the briefing paper and the committee is grateful for their contributions.
Anthea Cox said: ‘This is not a decision the Committee made lightly or without thorough investigation. We are fully aware of NestlÈ’s record in the past, and that, despite improvements, there are still reported violations of the WHO Code on the sale and marketing of baby milk. But companies are accountable to their shareholders, and if CFB invests it will, as usual, use that actively to press the company not only on the issue of baby milk, but in other areas as well. We encourage people to continue to be aware of the issues and to act accordingly. In our continued work on this issue we will consult with a number of groups and as a member of the Interagency Group on Breastfeeding Monitoring.’
The decision of the Committee does not mean that CFB will make an immediate investment in NestlÈ.