Genetically Modified Foods
Nestle was criticized for using genetically modified (GM)[1] ingredients in its food products, and was accused of dumping products rejected in Europe in developing Asian countries where the laws on GM products were either absent or less stringent.
For Kant , the company’s decision makers would have to be willing to advocate marketing the product even if they were themselves in the position of uniformed consumers. Therefore, providing unsafe products standard and ill-informed consumers by Nestle is absolutely wrong.

According to utilitarianism, ethical action is evaluated by looking at its consequences, weighing the good effects against the bad effects on all the people affect by it (Shaw & Barry, 2004). Most developing countries laced basic drinking water facilities. A very high water price was charged by Nestle limiting a number of people to buy it. Nestlé’s action produces the worse for the greatest number of South Asian because people could not afford for water which is basic human needs and is sporadic and contaminated in south Asiacountries.
Unethical marketing of infant formula and GM foods in developing countries are example of doing harm knowingly and willingly and of benefiting from the lack of legal restraints to the detriment of the eventual consumers. If business follow Kant ’s rule, it will provide a quality and safe product to its entire market.

In Ivory Coast, Children worked in hazardous conditions using machetes and spraying pesticides and insecticides without the necessary protective equipments. Such exploitation involves in significant Nestlé’s profit since the labors received only a very small proportion of the price paid for the Nestle product by the final consumer. According to the norm of doing more good than harm to host country, Nestle must stop buying cocoa from South Africa, which is under apartheid and uses child labor in hazardous working condition. For a utilitarian, however, these are considerations that can be balanced against other considerations, such as the benefit to others. On the other side of the balance are factors like corporate reputation (Orts, 1995). These factors can make corporate altruism worthwhile in the long run, even at the short-run expense of the stockholders. Nestle should demonstrate its ethical commitment through philanthropic contribution and use of its expertise and resources on numerous social problem in host countries.

Doing good business and being a good employer is pivotal and important guidelines in doing today’s multinationals. In fact, ethical business must respect for human dignity, and protect the fundamental rights of people. According to Aristotelian, equal should be treated equally and unequal unequally (Hirschman, 2001). This infers that individuals should be treated the same, unless they differ in ways that are relevant to the situation in which they are involved. If labors work the same jobs, they should be paid the same wage. If Nestle pays its labors less than other companies, then Nestle has an injustice in remuneration system. Violating human rights is immoral practices due to Kant ’s principle. This indicates that Nestle exploited and treated others as means rather than as ends, as thing rather than as person. Not only does Nestle (exploiter) fail to do its duty to others, but also fails to do this duty to itself; Nestle make itself into an object.