> It's the greed at topest level.
You say this as if it's some deviant behaviour that needs correcting.
But greed is normal and expected in a free market economy. Suppliers are expected to seek to reduce their costs and maximise their profits.
You say this as if it's some deviant behaviour that needs correcting.
But greed is normal and expected in a free market economy. Suppliers are expected to seek to reduce their costs and maximise their profits.
OK, technically true, just like saying "water flows downhill" when someone's house is flooding. It isn't productive, the fact is well known.
"The system incentivizes this" and "this is good/bad" are two entirely different statements. One doesn't address the other [1], until you make a moral judgement about the outcome.
> You say this as if it's some deviant behaviour that needs correcting.
Is it moral and correct for infants to be fed contaminated baby formula? The mismatch between what is and what ought to be is deviance.
I agree. My point is that the original comment was similarly unproductive.
You could buy whatever random Chinese milk powder brand. But Nestle is advertising itself on the upmost quality and care for you kids. Especially the brand impacted.
It's like going to a restaurant selling the best homemade luxury food and you go to the kitchen and you find that they cook expired supermarket frozen food because they greedily were thinking that it would be more profitable.
I think you need to address that to validate your original comment. Otherwise there's no justification for your claim.
The point is that somehow someone made the decision that there was a few cents of benefit to make to outsource the sourcing in China despite the risk, the environmental impact and the violation of customer trust about the safety of the product.
I believe that Nestle epitomizes the latter.