Essay About Sinar Mas And Use Of Palm Oil

Nestle Case Study
Essay Preview: Nestle Case Study
Report this essay
Problem Statement   Accusation by Greenpeace on highly influential social media of continuing the use of palm oil from Sinar Mas, Indonesian company caught red handed illegally deforesting and peat landing large land bank endangering the extinguishing species of Orangutans and Sumatran tigers.RecommendationsShort term recommendation:   Nestle to have press conference by temporarily suspending the contract with Sinar Mas and to have a brief meeting with Greenpeace sharing details of the new palm oil providers. By doing this it would instantly get the outrage of the consumers under control by showcasing Nestle do empathise with the situation (and do not take the responsibility of Sinar Mas actions towards the environment) yet would do all that needed against the wrong deeds of Sinar Mas.Long term recommendation:   To get into collaboration with a non-profit organisation for future guidance in auditing sustainability of its palm oil suppliers; to eliminate unsustainable products usage for business purpose. Non-profit organisations clearly work independently and are not under any type of political or government litigations; hence it would emit the future risk of same issue to erupt damaging the reputation, and would help in a better way in crisis management.Analysis   Greenpeace successfully targeted Nestle’s reputed brand Kit Kat with effective social media to draw public attention efficiently with the help of growing social media. Though Nestle uses approximately only 0.7% of the entire globs palm oil’s consumption; having an eagle in the market it was easy for Greenpeace to get the consumers instantly connected with the growing unsustainability problem by keeping gun on Nestle’s shoulder to fire companies like Sinar Mas, as they were caught red handed for illegally deforesting and burning the land bank for expanding the palm oil plantation. Why target only Nestle? Greenpeace had urged Nestle to unfollow the with Sinar Mas with other multinational companies, yet Nestle decided to playing blind eye by sourcing palm oil from Sinar Mas. Nestle did decide to do so as palm oil not being negligible part of their entire multinational company. Having it analysed, if eagle company like Nestle publicly withdraws its supplier Sinar Mas it would be a great start for the multinational companies to have sustainable business.   Alternatives and Decision Criteria     Having copyrights of Kit Kat, it is easy to remove the video from you tube for Nestle and not to respond Greenpeace regarding their allegations. However, consequences by not responding would be endangering own brands reputation at huge; having a new brand to be launched in Europe. Keeping in mind immense growth of social media blocking the video for the viewers would not solve the problem.Conclusion    After the long-term recommendation is brought in place Nestle should appoint various teams all across their offices to monitor social media sentiments; who could revert back with the relevant party with distinct information requested. Multinational national companies would always be at risk with sustainability issues taking in consideration the growing social media; hence becoming a sustainable business has become crucial.