Fourth Option
Potential Alternative
The fourth alternative to solve the ethical dilemma facing Nestle is being committed to only pumping water from natural resources when there is excess supply and when it is environmentally safe to do so. As a company that has dedicated its practices to integrity, this alternative ought to be highly considered since it aligns with doing the right thing for the correct motive. Indeed, this is a solution that has worked effectively for most eastern and western states that allow their landowners to bottle water as long as there is no measurable depletion of water levels, and the process is done within the acceptable environmental safety standards.
The fact is that there are seasons when the water flow from natural resources is in excess supply. In such instances, Nestle can be allowed to drain excess water to acceptable limits (Perkins). The process should be conducted in the right way to conserve the environment (Ellison). California and some western states have already adopted this move allowing landowners to drain the water levels as long as the neighbors towards the downstream are not significantly affected (Shimo; Tower). The option accompanied by already existing initiatives, such as replacement of freshwater intake with that which has evaporated during the manufacturing process, would work effectively towards resolving the ethical dilemma (Nestle).
In implementing this recommendation, the company would be required to obtain a permit for its monitoring and quality assurance project plans. The firm should carefully engage its stakeholders, including employees, on this option, to make sure that all the extraction standards are followed. The process should only be done when it is environmentally friendly to do so. Some of the environmental standards include proper waste management, minimal or no emissions during water extraction, and no depletion of water levels among others. The failure to abide by these standards would mean heightened conflict with the states and communities where Nestle extracts its water. Indeed, the reputation of the company would be ruined. All the state’s conditions should be met to give Nestle the leeway to increase its water extraction capacity.
Primary/Original Research
The potential outcome that would emanate from Nestle’s implementation of the recommended remedy would be reduced conflicts with the states and communities. Nestle’s arguments have been that it has valid water rights and compensates standard permit fees (James). The company denies any form of allegations of causing harm to the environment, especially through its extraction of water from the national forest. For instance, there is a report released by Nestle indicating that it uses the water that naturally flows at Arrowhead Springs (James). Moreover, some of the claims state that if the environment reaches a point where it yields less water, the firm only collects less (Perkins). Such stances have been met by a lot of controversy and conflicts not only by the states concerned but also by the community members. For instance, the company’s utilization of water from the national forest has led to an outpouring of opposition, protests, outcries, and lawsuit. The case happened since 2015 when there was Desert Sun investigation that divulged the U.S. Forest Service has been permitting Nestle to continue extracting water from the national forest using an expired permit (James). The expectation is that the implementation of the fourth option would be a way of resulting in reduced disputes.
Through observational study and interviewing one of the community members that has been adversely affected by the extraction activities, it became evident that it is possible to lower the disputes between the company and communities. The observational study was based on various aspects that were highlighted as the major causes of disputes. They included the depletion of water levels, waste, and destroyed forest cover. By vising the national forest, there would be the realization that much of the forest cover would have been restored as Nestle implements the new strategy of extracting water within acceptable limits and in an environmentally friendly manner. Similar results have been experienced in Malaysia, as shown in Figure 1. In this regard, an environmentally friendly manner would mean less noise pollution, minimal deforestation, only tapping flowing water, and minimal waste at the site (Tower). Indeed, such would have to be observed at the site to conclude that the fourth alternative has been effective. Already, Nestle has already implemented a strategy of reducing water use across all its factories, as shown in Figure 2. All these strategies would help reduce the conflict and disputes between Nestle, the states, and community members.
Figure 1: Malaysia’s efforts on water conservation (Nestle, 2016)
Figure 2: Nestle’s Zero Water Strategy. (Nestle, 2015).
The other Assessment tool is conducting interview with a community member living close to the extraction site. The area of interest would be the forest north of San Bernardino that has been the center of controversy for a while as Nestle has been extracting water from there. By meeting one of the residents, it would become evident that he has been affected adversely by the conflict. Referring to past events, the interviewee reveals that state officials conducted an investigation and concluded that Nestle does not seem to have valid rights for much of the water it extracts from the forest north of San Bernardino. He indicates that the company’s pipeline was the center of controversy in that the extraction of water poses harm to the spring-fed crops and wildlife alike. When asked if by allowing Nestle to extract water only when it is in excess supply would work in resolving the dispute, he indicates that this would be a wise idea in that there would be no depletion of water levels as it has been the case. He goes ahead to add that there would be reduced conflict as communities around would have enough supply of water as well. Table 1 below shows the results of this interview.
Figure 1: Interview Results
Interview Question Response
Do you think the forest north of San Bernardino is safe with Nestle extracting water from it? Not at all, the company has been drawing excess water from the site through its invalid pipeline.
What do you think is the most affected by these activities? I have seen wildlife going without water and roaming around in search of this commodity. We do not have enough water for our spring-fed strawberries as well.
Do you think allowing Nestle to draw water when it is in excess would be appropriate? Somehow that would work well since they would not be allowed to extract water when it is less at the source.
Do you think would end the dispute? Yes, definitely.
What about doing it in an environmentally friendly way? I presume that you mean by following all environmental standards? Yes, that would be effective.
Source: Interview
Conclusion
In general, Nestle’s extraction of water from natural resources has been met with a lot of controversy over the past years. The ethical dilemma identified in this case is that the company has been siphoning freshwater from natural resources and bottling it to generate profits. In this case, the process has been met with a lot of outcry from the public and the adjacent communities. The company supports its actions with the claims that it has valid permits to conduct its extraction and that it only does so with flowing water when it is deemed appropriate. The fact is that there have been a lot of loopholes to such an undertaking in that investigations have depicted that some of the licenses to do the extraction are expired. Such an exercise leads to depletion of water levels, which adversely affects the communities around and the wildlife alike. The fourth recommendation appears to be the most appropriate as it advocates for Nestle to siphon water only when it is in excess supply and do so in an environmentally friendly way. The fact is that this move would be embraced by the majority in the sense that it would lead to reduced disputes between the communities, states, and the company over the water issue. Tapping still water would be inappropriate for the environment as this can lead to depletion of water resources. Moreover, the environmental standards, including prevention of noise pollution, waste management, minimal deforestation, and less or no emissions, should be observed by the company when conducting its activities. Indeed, such moves would play a significant role in resolving the ethical dilemma that has been facing Nestle for quite some time now. The expected outcome would be that people would be able to live in harmony with the company, thus preventing any form of disputes and conflicts that have been experienced. Through an interview and observational study at the forest north of San Bernardino, it became evident that application of the recommendation would play a significant role in alleviating the disputes and conflicts between the company, state, and community members. The observation revealed that there would be minimal deforestation, waste, and depleted water levels. Through an interview, an interviewee divulged that it would be possible to have sufficient water supply to the people and wildlife with the implementation of this alternative.
Prediction
Ultimately, Nestle is likely to benefit significantly from the fourth alternative discussed in this paper. The company would regain its reputation of doing right in the correct way. Everyone, including the community members and the states, would have benefited significantly from the recommendation.
Works Cited
Ellison, Garret. “Michigan Township Wins Appeal in Nestle Water Zoning Lawsuit.” Mlive, 2019, https://www.mlive.com/news/2019/12/michigan-township-wins-appeal-in-nestle-water-zoning-lawsuit.html
James, Ian. “Nestle Bottled Water Controversy Becomes Campaign issue in California Race. Desert Sun, 2018, https://www.desertsun.com/story/news/environment/2018/05/21/nestle-bottled-water-controversy-becomes-campaign-issue-california-race/630370002/
Nestle. “How We Make Saving Water Our Priority at Nestlé Malaysia.” 2016, https://www.nestle.com.my/media/newsandfeatures/how-we-make-saving-water-our-priority-at-nestle-malaysia
Nestle. “Nestle and Water: Sustainability, Protection, Stewardship.” Nestle, https://www.nestle.com/sites/default/files/asset-library/documents/reports/csv%20reports/water/sustainability_protection_stewardship_english.pdf
Nestle. “Nestle in the United States,” Nestle, 2015, https://www.nestleusa.com/sites/g/files/pydnoa536/files/asset-library/documents/creatingsharedvalue/download_report/nusa_csv_report_2014%20final-7%20lores.pdf
Perkins, Tom. “The Fight to Stop Nestle from Taking America’s Water to Sell in Plastic Bottles.” The Guardian, 2019, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/29/the-fight-over-water-how-nestle-dries-up-us-creeks-to-sell-water-in-plastic-bottles
Shimo, Alexandra. “While Nestle Extracts Millions of Litres from their Land, Residents Have No Drinking Water.” The Guardian, 2018, https://www.theguardian.com/global/2018/oct/04/ontario-six-nations-nestle-running-water
Tower, Mark. “10 Things to Know About Nestle’s New Permit to Extract More Groundwater.” Mlive, 2018, https://www.mlive.com/news/erry-2018/04/c4f53fc3a99620/10_things_to_know_about_nestle.html
