This paper will review the Nestle Company's social performance in response to boycotts made against their products. What did they do to respond to the criticism? Did their responses show that they understood social justice? Did they cave in to the public’s opinions? The reason for research to start being done on Nestle was due to the fact that they used marketing attempts that encouraged women in third world countries to replace breastfeeding with powdered baby formula. The problem with this was that many of the people in these third world countries were not educated about hygiene and the risks of unclean water. This being said, the critics believed that due to that fact that the formula needing to be mixed with water, it was adding to the number of malnutrition babies and infant mortalities. Outside spectators also believed that the company was taking advantage of this market in efforts to boost sales in parts of Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America and that they were using suspicious sales tactics like the use of milk nurses mother craft workers. There were two instances that Nestle was involved in that showed how they handled criticism. When it came to the Infant formula controversy, nestle handled it in a proactive way. They joined with other companies to form the International Council of Infant Food Industries (ICIFI) and they collaborated on the publication on code of ethics for infant formula. The Infant Formula Action Council (INFACT), which was a citizens action group and a national campaign, boycotted the use of nestle products until they changed their policies on elements such as mass media advertising, distribution of free samples in hospitals or clinics, and formula population. For their public relations strategy in response to all the boycotting, they had representatives available all over the United States. These representatives met with health advocacy groups and medical professionals to explain that the causes