Greenpeace vs. Nestle – on freedom of expression

Last two weeks mark increased amount of discussions around recent Greenpeace campaign targeting Nestle for their usage of palm oil resulting in highly destructive impact on environment. Campaign started with a viral video uploaded to YouTube and hosted on the main site of the organization featuring office scene during which an employee is eating a bleeding KitKat bar referring to the effect of the brand on orangutans.

Have a break? from Greenpeace UK on Vimeo.

In response to this criticism Nestle has successfully requested the video to be taken off YouTube. Reactions to both original viral as well as to the brand response moved to Nestle Facebook group, where admins made it clear that negative opinions would be deleted and reminded fans that usage of any creatively re-designed company logos is illegal. Block of e-mails sent to the organization was also mentioned.

Entire issue generated a lot of criticism about freedom of expression in general, but also towards Nestle as an organization, including comments from social media specialist suggesting appropriate actions – some of those in mainstream media, some on Nestle Facebook group.


In the meantime Greenpeace has become a case study of how to conduct a successful on-line campaign with the usage of relatively low budget tools, real time responsive strategies as well as creative ideas.

Additionally last Friday their other on-line campaign, AirPlot resulted in success  – UK court has stopped plans for further development of Heathrow Airport.


Join the conversation

Authors, please log in »


  • All comments are reviewed by a moderator. Do not submit your comment more than once or it may be identified as spam.
  • Please treat others with respect. Comments containing hate speech, obscenity, and personal attacks will not be approved.