Commission asked to investigate Nestlé's London Marathon sponsorship 2

Governance | Vibeka Mair | 20 Apr 2011

Baby Milk Action has asked the Charity Commission to investigate sponsorship of the London Marathon by Nestlé, after failed attempts to discuss the Nestlé deal with the London Marathon Charitable Trust.

Baby Milk Action campaigns for people to boycott Nestlé products because it claims the company's marketing of breast milk substitutes in poor countries threatens the health of infants.

It has contacted the Charity Commission regarding Nestlé's sponsorship of bottled water at the London Marathon. Nestlé's Pure Life brand has been the official water of the Marathon since 2010.

A Baby Milk Action spokesman said: “When Baby Milk Action contacted the London Marathon Charitable Trust last year, the first time water at the event was branded as Nestlé Pure Life, to discuss the sponsorship policy and introducing ethical clauses if these did not exist, it was told the policy was ‘confidential’.

“All efforts to enter into discussion of the appropriateness of Nestlé were met with the response of ‘no comment'.”

The London Marathon Charitable Trust referred enquiries to its trading arm London Marathon Ltd.

Nick Bitel, chief executive of London Marathon Ltd, told Civil Society that Nestlé Pure Life had “nothing to do with the charity”.

“Nestle is a sponsor of the London Marathon, owned by London Marathon Ltd. We have explained this to Baby Milk Action,” he said.

However, Mike Brady, campaigns and network co-ordinator at Baby Milk Action, argued that surpluses from sponsorship and income made by the London Marathon Ltd are passed to the London Marathon Charitable Trust: “Do they have no interest in where the money comes from?” he said. “It will be interesting to see what the Charity Commission makes of it. Can a charity set up a wholly-owned subsidiary and escape all responsibilities for it?”

Baby Milk Action has asked the Charity Commission to investigate the Nestlé sponsorship, referring to Charity Commission guidance on fundraising and sponsorship which states: "Charities should be transparent about any relationship they have with a commercial partner and put in place the appropriate safeguards."

The guidance goes on: "Charities should be particularly cautious as co-branding or closely associating the charity with a company can become problematic if the company is discovered to engage in unethical practices or criminal activity. Charities need to carefully research the commercial participator and should consider whether a partnership with the commercial participator is appropriate and in line with the charity’s values and objects."

Baby Milk Action claims that Nestlé is one of the four most boycotted companies in the world because it is accused of marketing baby milk with strategies that violate international standards.

A Nestlé spokeswoman said: “Nestlé fully supports the World Health Organisation's recommendation of exclusive breastfeeding for six months followed by the introduction of appropriate complementary foods and continued breastfeeding thereafter.

“In the developing world, Nestlé has adopted the strictest rules in the industry concerning marketing practices of infant formula and fully complies with the WHO Code of Marketing of Breast Milk Substitutes. Nestlé has set up a significant programme of WHO Code compliance and monitoring. The Nestlé system is recognised as best in class by social investment groups.

“On 11 March 2011, FTSE Group recognised Nestlé’s efforts in this field and announced that Nestlé will be added to the FTSE4Good Global Index Series. Nestlé is the first infant formula company to have met the FTSE4Good Breast Milk Substitute (BMS) Marketing Criteria selection criteria and to be included in this Index. The BMS criteria build on the International Code of Marketing of Breast Milk Substitutes (WHO Code) and on subsequent World Health Assembly (WHA) resolutions.”

A Charity Commission spokeswoman said it would consider the concerns raised and decide whether there was any regulatory interest.

Directory: The London Marathon Charitable Trust

Place a comment

Muriel Simmons
Chairman
Allergy UK
20 Apr 2011

In the past we have worked with Nestle and without their financial support for our Blossom Campaign we would not have been able to produce very informative booklets for pregnant and new mothers coping with allergy.

At no time did Nestle make any attempt to influence the project or the information we were giving, they did not request a place on the project group,or demand any publicity for their company. Their only interest was in enabling us to produce the much needed information written by leading allergy specialists.

Having been subjected to lengthy telephone calls at the time from Baby Milk Action trying to persuade us against working with Nestle I wonder just how much time and money they are using from their funds in their now outdated campaign against this company. Perhaps that is a question the Charity Commission may wish to consider.

[Reply]

Mike Brady
Campaigns and Networking Coordinator
Baby Milk Action
20 Apr 2011

It is strange to read the arguments about the separation of the Charitable Trust and trading arm as justification for ignoring Charity Commission guidance on commercial sponsorship. Baby Milk Action contacted the London Marathon after the 2010 event was sponsored by Nestlé Pure Life to try to discuss the sponsorship policy with the organisers, but was told "The London Marathon’s sponsorship policy is confidential to the organisation of the event including the Race Director, CEO, Board of Directors and Trustees".

As a beloved national event, one might expect there to be a transparent sponsorship policy in place, regardless of the separation of roles.

Nestlé Pure Life has been a controversial product since its launch in Pakistan and Nestlé stopped producing it in Brazil after a long campaign by the inhabitants of São Lourenço where it had its bottling plant .

Nestlé refers to being listed by FTSE4Good, but does not mention that it was excluded from the listing since its inception and has been included now not through changing its marketing practices, but because FTSE4Good weakened its criteria in September 2010. As UNICEF said in response to the listing:

"The evidence available to us suggests that all breastmilk substitute manufacturers currently violate the International Code routinely. We are therefore following the inclusion of Nestle on the index carefully and will be looking for evidence that their marketing begins to comply with the Code."

The guidance from the Charity Commission on transparency and care over commercial partners is sensible for all types of organisation, whether Charitable Trust or trading arm, and we hope all involved in organising the event and receiving income from the sponsorship will give it due consideration.

[Reply]

Comments

[Cancel] | Reply to:

Name *

Email *

Organisation

Job Title

Comments *

Verification *

* Please read our Community Standards

Close »

Community Standards

The civilsociety.co.uk community and comments board is intended as a platform for informed and civilised debate.

We hope to encourage a broad range of views, however, there are standards that we expect commentators to uphold. We reserve the right to delete or amend any comments that do not adhere to these standards.

We welcome:

Robust but respectful debate
Strongly held opinions
Intelligent relevant discussion
The sharing of relevant experiences
New participants

We will not publish:

Rude, threatening, offensive, obscene or abusive language, or links to such material
Links to commercial organisations or spam postings. The comments board is not an advertising platform
The posting of contact details for yourself or others
Comments intended for malicious purpose or mindless abuse
Comments purporting to be from another person or organisation under false pretences
Gratuitous criticism, commentary or self-promotion
Any material which breaches copyright or privacy laws, or could be considered libellous
The use of the comments board for the pursuit or extension of personal disputes

Be aware:

Views expressed on the comments board are left at users’ discretion and are in no way views held or supported by Civil Society Media
Comments left by others may not be accurate, do not rely on them as fact
You may be misunderstood - sarcasm and humour can easily be taken out of context, try to be clear

Please:

Enjoy the opportunity to express your opinion and respect the right of others to express theirs
Confine your remarks to issues rather than personalities

Together we can keep our community a polite, respectful and intelligent platform for discussion.