After all, they issued their glossy report and claimed good corporate citizenship, not me. And this site published it without critical review, which is what some of us are trying to provide in these comments.

I’m happy Nestle’s putting less plastic into bottles. Unfortunately – if Nestle leverages its considerable media power to claim sainthood because they reduced the amount of plastic in their bottles (enjoying lower plastic and transportation costs), then I feel entirely justified pointing out their business practices leave a lot to be desired, and that suing small towns in an attempt to force 24/7 truck loading stations in residential areas is hardly the act of a good corporate citizen.

I could easily list another dozen reasons why Nestle is in fact NOT a good corporate citizen. For that matter, since they extensively market their bottled water – attacking the quality of tap water supplies in the process – I feel justified in pointing out the lunacy of bottling water in plastic bottles (70%-80% of which are not recycled), transporting it, and paying $1.50 for it.

Whatever advances they’ve made in their bottling operation, Nestle’s “Shared Value” report falls under the heading of “greenwash” – at least as long as their actual, on-the-ground business practices include predatory tactics in rural towns, misleading (or blatantly false) ads, poor environmental practices, legal bullying and whole host of other deplorable tactics.

I can’t say that I have agreed with everything that they have done over the last 35 years or so, but I think this is progress.

Nestle’s greenwashing is legendary; their practices often vary widely from their stated guidelines. One example? They proclaim themselves good stewards of water supplies, yet in Michigan, a judge ordered a Mecosta County Nestle plant to cease pumping due to the damage being done to the watershed (Nestle ultimately cut its pumping in half to maintain some production at the plant).

In Florida, Nestle lobbyists convinced political appointees to allow the company to extract 1.47-million gallons per day from drought-stricken Blue Springs instead of the 400,000 gallons per day wanted by state scientests, who wanted to protect the spring, which was running at the lowest flows ever recorded.

Worse is Nestle/Poland’s Spring’s handling of those who oppose – for a variety of reasons – their water bottling business, including the tiny town of Fryeburg, Maine.

Fryeburg’s repeatedly said “no” to the truck loading station your multinational wants to site in a residential area, and yet Nestle/Poland Spring has sued/appealed the town five times, including a trip to the State Supreme Court.

That hardly seems like the act of benign corporate neighbor, and after hearing of Fryeburg’s predicament – including the fact that a small citizens group finds itself $21,000 in debt after fighting Nestle’s steady stream of briefs – small towns are rightfully concerned about protecting their water and local economies from an entity that seems to care more about profits than the well-being of local communities and watersheds.

Almost everything Nestle does is designed to save money, and environmental benefits are purely secondary. Another example? Nestle proudly trumpets its use of biofuels in its fleet of trucks in Maine, yet they’re only using 5% biofuel – a number suspiciously close the 4% needed to qualify for a tax break from the state.

It’s hard to see that in any light but a washed-out hue of green.

TC

Careless handling by the people who buy these products is the only problem. Our recycling and littering rates are not the manufacturer’s fault – this is the fault of the consumer’s reckless handling of waste.

First, it’s ludicrous to describe bottled water in any sort of “eco-friendly” terms; compared to the high-quality water that flows from most taps, the bottling (in plastic, 80% of which isn’t recycled) and transportation of water creates a sizable carbon footprint.

Second, Nestle has a troubling history of usurping local control of water supplies, especially in rural areas (where most of its “spring” water brands are bottled).

For example, they’ve sued the tiny town of Fryeburg (Maine) five times in an attempt to force a 24/7 truck loading station (in a residential area) on the town. In McCloud, CA, the original contract Nestle negotiated with the tiny town would have given Nestle exclusive rights to the water for 100 years, and also afforded the multinational priority over the town’s own residents.

Their stewarship of water supplies is also questionable; in Michigan they were ordered to stop pumping water for their Mecosta County plant by a judge due to the damage being done to the watershed. Their response was to sue in an attempt to overturn Michigan’s environmental law – challenging not the question of their damaging the watershed, but the right of citizens to bring suit for damaging activities taking place on the lands of others.

I could go on, but Nestle is hardly to be lauded for the “green” stance; making thinner bottles delivers sizable cost savings to them, and their record of legal bullying and predatory behavior towards small towns largely erases any profit-motivated goodwill they’ve accumulated.