We can assume that Nestlé executives are sitting in Switzerland dreaming up where in the world they extract the most water from, put in a bottle, and reselling to the communities (and further afield) that they took the water from.
>We can assume that Nestlé executives are sitting in Switzerland dreaming up where in the world they extract the most water from, put in a bottle, and reselling to the communities (and further afield) that they took the water from.
What's the problem with that? It sounds exactly like what the water utility does, except with plastic bottles rather than pipes.
perhaps not a problem one some people's mind, but certainly a material difference:
utilities prioritize the welfare of the citizens who reside in an vote for the (local/regional/national) political apparatus VS exploiting resources with the aim of maximizing profit for shareholders
one benefit that private water companies like Perrier / Fiji Water / Nestlé et al provide to society is that they "distribute" water to locations where there's less. Or at least that what it seems like.
However, on the one hand very little of the water consumed this way is by people who do not have access to local water. Two; they try as much as possible to underpay the "community" from whence they extract the water, so that should be made more fair.
>utilities prioritize the welfare of the citizens who reside in an vote for the (local/regional/national) political apparatus VS exploiting resources with the aim of maximizing profit for shareholders
How is this any different than any other industries that consume water (eg. farms or factories) and use that to make money? At least with nestle water, it's not a premium product so in all likelihood it isn't getting shipped across the world like Perrier is.
Incentive. Farms and factories require water as an input to fulfil some other purpose. They have no incentive to extract more water than they need for their processes, increasing the price incentivises them to reduce their consumption. In contrast, a bottled water company's revenue directly correlates with how much water they can extract. Increasing the price does not encourage a reduction in consumption since consumption is tied to revenue. In fact, if margins tighten due to price increases we might expect to see production increase, with the aim of maintaining the rate of profit.
Even without being shipped across the world, in most places, bottled water is still hugely wasteful. Multiple facilities, haulage, plastic, stores, and refrigeration to deliver something that is directly piped into almost every building.
That doesn't seem to be what everyone is mad about though, judging by the comment chain.
>And water utilities aren't run for profit. Or if they are, they're heavily regulated.
I'd be sympathetic to this argument if nestle was the sole provider of water in an area, but they're not. In a hypothetical universe where nestle has a monopoly on bottled water distribution and is abusing it by charging $2/bottle or whatever, the damage would be limited because people could just... use their own bottles. Also, given that bottled water "is a big problem", should we really care that consumers can't get them for cheap?
I too take a long drink of my tap water and think to myself "It's a shame some prick isn't getting rich because I'm thirsty and his great-grandfather built a pipe".
Honest and competent civil servants are one of the most precious resource in any government, and even more in poor countries.
Hence it is important to economies on their use.
Eg instead of having court appointed bankruptcy proceedings that tie up the time of a judge, just liquidate.
In general, you want to arrange government procedures to be simple and quick to carry out, and with not much subjective judgement requirement, because that requires competence and provides nooks and crannies to hide corruption in.
Pulling back the responsibilities of government and lettings markets handle more, is a good way to assist with this effort.
(Another example: when you privatise a government owned company or department, you should pay off its debts and auction it off to the highest bidder. Government officials should not be used to judge a beauty contest of business plans for the new entity. Those plans never work out as advertised anyway.
In an account sense, paying off the debts first doesn't make a difference: a company with 1 dollar more debt on the balance sheet should just sell for an additional dollar more.
But in practice, asset stripping is much easier done with highly leveraged companies, and politically it's hard to keep the government from (implicitly) backing the debt.)
In places with reliable supply of potable water - most of the developed world - the business provides no real value. And plenty of harm in the form of plastic pollution.
Bottled water should be a niche business. In the same category as surplus MREs or heavy-duty construction radios.
nothing in an of itself, but if you look at the strategies that Nestlé employ around the world to gain access to water while cynically damaging communities, it is hard to be on their side.
Nestlé is the company that bribed hospitals in poor countries to tell new mothers that their artificial milk was better than breast milk.
Once they had been on the bottled milk they can't go back to breast milk so when they leave the hospital the mothers are forced to buy the artificial milk.
Many of them can't afford it so the babies starve to death.
This is what the corporation you trust has done. Literally killing babies for profit.
