Higher education partnership

Higher Education Partnerships with the Private Sector within the Framework of the Sustainable Development Goals: A Case Study of the UNU-Nestlé Partnership and Its Implications for Academic Integrity and Public Health

By:

Yayasan Pendidikan Indonesia – Special Consultative Status with ECOSOC, United Nations (since 2013)

Abstract

Partnerships between higher education institutions and the private sector are increasingly seen as an important strategy for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This article examines the partnership between United Nations University (UNU) and Nestlé to establish the World Food Academy for Sustainable Food Systems (2026). While university-industry partnerships are generally encouraged, criticism from CHSL and IBFAN highlights potential conflicts of interest. This paper emphasizes that any public call to action must be grounded in accurate scientific evidence, not assumptions. This neutral approach aims to provide a balanced perspective for education stakeholders in Indonesia and around the world.

Keywords: United Nations University, Nestlé, ultra-processed foods, Sustainable Development Goals, university-industry partnerships, conflict of interest, scientific evidence.

Introduction

On Tuesday, 21 July 2026, Yayasan Pendidikan Indonesia received an official email from the Centre for Health Science and Law (CHSL) in Canada. The email requested support for their public criticism calling on United Nations University (UNU) to immediately end its strategic partnership with Nestlé. According to CHSL, the partnership conflicts with principles of global public health, particularly regarding the protection of breastfeeding and the prevention of negative impacts from ultra-processed food products.

United Nations University (UNU) is an autonomous and independent postgraduate institution within the United Nations system. Established in 1973 as a UN entity, UNU functions as a global think tank that produces high-quality research, postgraduate education, and evidence-based policy recommendations to support the UN’s agenda. High academic freedom is one of UNU’s core pillars, bringing with it the responsibility to uphold scientific integrity and the public interest. In addition to UNU, several other universities hold similar status as UN entities, including EUCLID International University, which is represented by Yayasan Pendidikan Indonesia in Indonesia and Timor-Leste.

In March 2026, UNU’s Institute for Water, Environment and Health (UNU-INWEH) announced a partnership with Nestlé—one of the world’s largest multinational food and beverage companies, with significant operations in Indonesia—to establish the World Food Academy for Sustainable Food Systems. The initiative aims to strengthen educational capacity, career development, and knowledge exchange in the field of sustainable food systems, particularly for young people and researchers in the Global South. This partnership is framed within SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals), which explicitly encourages multi-stakeholder collaboration among governments, civil society, academia, and the business sector.

In a broader perspective, partnerships between higher education institutions and the private sector are a growing global phenomenon. Amid limited government budgets for higher education and research, Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) initiatives by multinational companies such as Nestlé Indonesia have become a much-needed strategic instrument.

CSR funding can support independent research, sustainability-oriented curriculum development, scholarships, and capacity-building programs that benefit society. Many universities worldwide, including in Indonesia, rely on CSR contributions to finance environmental research, nutrition studies, sustainable agriculture, and green technology innovation. Therefore, a blanket rejection of all forms of collaboration with the business sector must be considered carefully so as not to hinder progress in education and development.

General Benefits of Higher Education Partnerships with the Private Sector

Empirical studies show that university-industry collaborations deliver significant benefits. Such partnerships have been proven to enhance student engagement, academic performance, graduate employability, technology transfer, and the pace of sustainable innovation. Through these collaborations, universities gain access to resources, equipment, industry data, practitioner mentoring, and opportunities to apply theoretical knowledge to real-world problems. In the context of sustainability, partnerships with the private sector often serve as important catalysts for innovative solutions to challenges related to food, water, climate change, and environmental resilience.

Criticism of the UNU-Nestlé Partnership

Although partnerships between higher education institutions and the private sector are generally encouraged and form an important part of SDG implementation strategies, criticism of the specific partnership between United Nations University (UNU) and Nestlé has been particularly intense. This criticism is not directed at the principle of partnership itself, but at Nestlé’s specific characteristics as a company and the potential risks involved.

Nestlé is a Swiss multinational that has operated for over 150 years and is one of the world’s largest producers of food and beverages. The company is the largest global producer of infant formula and a major player in the ultra-processed food (UPF) industry. In Indonesia, Nestlé has a strong presence through various brands of milk, baby food, coffee, chocolate, and nutritional products. These contribute significantly to the national economy while forming part of the everyday consumer landscape.

Critics, led by the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN) and the Centre for Health Science and Law (CHSL), argue that Nestlé’s involvement in education and professional development programs in nutrition and food systems through the World Food Academy creates serious conflicts of interest. They contend that a company with direct commercial interests in marketing infant formula and UPF products should not be given influence over educational content, curricula, or the perspectives of future professionals in health and nutrition.

Furthermore, critics use the term “blue-washing”—referring to companies improving their image and legitimacy by associating with prestigious institutions such as the UN or UNU. In this way, Nestlé can gain a perception of being a responsible, science-based partner, even though some of its business practices continue to draw scrutiny from the global health community. They fear that this partnership could blur the line between public and commercial interests and potentially influence the direction of research, teaching materials, and policy recommendations produced by UNU.

These concerns are reinforced by Nestlé’s long record regarding infant formula marketing. Since the 1970s, the company has frequently been criticized for aggressive marketing practices alleged to violate the International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes (WHO/UNICEF, 1981) and its supporting resolutions. Critics link this to declining rates of exclusive breastfeeding in many countries, which in turn contributes to increased health risks for infants and young children.

Beyond infant formula, criticism also focuses on Nestlé’s role in the global expansion of ultra-processed foods. Recent scientific studies, including The Lancet Series on Ultra-Processed Foods and Human Health (2025), show that high consumption of UPF is strongly associated with increased risks of obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, mental health disorders, and certain cancers. In this context, Nestlé’s involvement in a food academy aimed at educating the next generation about “sustainable food systems” is seen as paradoxical and potentially creating structural bias in nutrition education.

Nevertheless, it is important to note that this criticism reflects a broader tension in global governance: how to balance the need for private-sector funding and innovation with the precautionary principle in protecting public health and academic integrity. The criticism from IBFAN and CHSL is not limited to one partnership but serves as a call for reflection across the entire UN system and international higher education on developing stricter due diligence standards and conflict-of-interest management.

Scientific Evidence on Health Risks of Nestlé Products

Scientific evidence on the negative health impacts of ultra-processed foods (UPF) has grown rapidly over the past decade and has now reached a strong consensus among global public health and nutrition experts.

The Lancet Series on Ultra-Processed Foods and Human Health (2025) is one of the most comprehensive publications to date. This three-paper series, involving dozens of leading international researchers including Carlos Monteiro, Barry Popkin, and Mark Lawrence, concludes that high UPF consumption is not merely a reflection of “unhealthy choices” but a key driver of damaging shifts in global dietary patterns.

According to the series, UPF reduce overall diet quality through mechanisms of hyper-palatability, high energy density, disruption of food matrices, and excessive additives. This ultimately contributes to increased burdens of chronic disease across nearly all body systems.

A large-scale umbrella review meta-analysis published in The BMJ (2024) further strengthens these findings. The analysis, covering 45 observational meta-analyses with millions of participants, found consistent evidence linking UPF exposure to 32 adverse health outcomes. There is convincing evidence (Class I) for increased risk of cardiovascular disease mortality (risk ratio 1.50) and type 2 diabetes. Highly suggestive evidence (Class II) was also found for all-cause mortality, heart disease, obesity, depression, anxiety, and sleep disorders. While evidence quality is mostly low to moderate (GRADE), the consistency of the direction of associations across studies is very strong.

Nestlé, as a dominant player in the global processed food industry, is often associated with the market expansion of UPF and infant formula. The company continues to face ongoing criticism from monitoring networks such as IBFAN for marketing practices alleged to violate the International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes (WHO, 1981) and related World Health Assembly resolutions. Commonly reported violations include unethical promotion through healthcare workers as influencers, distribution of free samples in health facilities, and advertising that implies formula is equal or superior to breast milk.

The decline in exclusive breastfeeding due to formula marketing has been linked to measurable health consequences. Meta-analyses and large cohort studies show that infants not receiving exclusive breastfeeding face higher risks of acute respiratory infections, severe diarrhea, and neonatal mortality. For mothers, shorter breastfeeding duration is associated with increased risks of breast and ovarian cancer, as well as cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes later in life. Although multiple factors (poverty, access to clean water, workplace support, etc.) play a role, scientific evidence indicates that aggressive commercial marketing is a significant and modifiable variable.

In the context of the UNU-Nestlé partnership, scientific criticism focuses on potential epistemic bias: when a major producer of UPF and infant formula is directly involved in educating and shaping the next generation of leaders in nutrition and food systems, there is a systemic risk that industry frameworks will influence scientific narratives and policy recommendations. This raises profound questions about the ethical boundaries between legitimate CSR contributions and undue influence over the public academic space.

Discussion

The criticism raised by CHSL, IBFAN, and hundreds of supporting academics and organizations has substantial scientific grounding and deserves serious attention from all stakeholders. The issues raised are not a simple debate between “pro-business” and “pro-health” positions, but reflect deeper structural tensions in global governance in the Anthropocene era: how to balance the urgent need for funding, innovation, and cross-sector collaboration with the precautionary principle, academic integrity, and protection of vulnerable groups—especially infants and children.

Several important academic points should be noted. First, health impact estimates frequently cited—such as 424,000 to 823,000 infant and child deaths per year due to suboptimal breastfeeding—are largely model-based (e.g., using the Lives Saved Tool or Global Burden of Disease analyses). While these models are useful, they involve epidemiological assumptions, causality attribution, and data extrapolation that remain subject to debate among experts.

Contextual factors such as access to clean water, sanitation, maternal nutritional status, and socio-economic support often interact in complex ways, making it difficult to claim that formula marketing is the sole or dominant factor. Good scientific practice requires transparency about the limitations of the evidence.

Second, the effectiveness of public-private partnerships (PPPs) in food and nutrition is not black-and-white. Some systematic reviews show that PPPs can generate technological innovation, expand educational access, and mobilize resources unattainable by the public sector alone. However, other reviews also identify risks of “regulatory capture,” bias in research agenda-setting, and limited public health benefits when governance is weak. The success or failure of a partnership depends heavily on institutional design: strong due diligence mechanisms, transparency on conflicts of interest, editorial independence, independent ethics committees, and clear periodic evaluation and exit clauses.

Third, as an autonomous and independent university within the UN system, UNU has the mandate and academic freedom to form strategic partnerships in support of its mission. This autonomy is both a strength and a responsibility. Given constraints on public funding for higher education and global research, a total rejection of all industry partnerships risks hindering knowledge advancement and practical solutions to SDG challenges. On the other hand, partnerships without adequate safeguards can erode public trust in multilateral institutions and damage long-term scientific legitimacy.

This phenomenon reflects the classic dilemma of the “commercial determinants of health.” Industry possesses extraordinary resources, data, and reach, but also inherent incentives to maximize profit. Therefore, the discussion should not stop at “whether collaboration is allowed,” but focus on “how to collaborate ethically and accountably.” Experiences from successful countries—such as partnerships with the pharmaceutical industry for vaccines or with the technology sector for digital education—demonstrate that transparency, research independence, and public accountability are the key factors.

In the Indonesian context, this discussion is relevant to efforts to improve higher education quality, national food security, and stunting reduction. Indonesia can draw lessons to develop a more mature national framework for regulating partnerships between universities and multinational corporations, including transparent CSR requirements oriented toward national health and education priorities.

Overall, criticism of the UNU-Nestlé partnership should not be viewed as an attack on collaboration, but as an important call to strengthen governance and institutional ethics in the era of multi-stakeholder partnerships.

Conclusion and Recommendations

The partnership between United Nations University and Nestlé in the World Food Academy for Sustainable Food Systems reflects the complexity of our time: on one hand, there is an urgent need to collaborate in addressing global challenges such as food security, climate change, and sustainable nutrition; on the other, there is an imperative need to safeguard scientific integrity, academic independence, and public health priorities—especially for the most vulnerable groups: infants, children, and mothers.

Yayasan Pendidikan Indonesia reaffirms the fundamental scientific principle that any public call to action, criticism, or demand to end a partnership must be based entirely on accurate empirical evidence, verifiable up-to-date data, and comprehensive, balanced analysis—not merely assumptions, ideological beliefs, or advocacy perspectives alone. As an educational institution, our primary priority is to empower the next generation with the ability to think critically, analytically, and responsibly when facing complex global issues.

We encourage students, academics, researchers, and civil society in Indonesia to actively:

• Study primary sources directly from UNU, WHO, Nestlé, IBFAN reports, and other independent monitors.

• Examine in depth both the opportunities offered by SDG-based partnerships and the risks of undue commercial influence.

• Engage in respectful, open, evidence-based dialogue that always considers Indonesia’s local context—including the diversity of nutrition challenges, rates of exclusive breastfeeding, stunting prevalence, and the urgent need for sustainable agriculture and national food security.

We appreciate CHSL’s invitation and the strong advocacy spirit behind the open letter. However, as a neutral and independent educational institution, Yayasan Pendidikan Indonesia currently neither supports nor opposes the call to end the UNU-Nestlé partnership.

We choose a position that supports thorough due diligence, transparent periodic evaluation, and ongoing monitoring of all forms of collaboration. Only in this way can partnerships truly advance the sustainable development agenda without sacrificing public trust or the health protection of future generations.

The global problems we face—from double malnutrition to the climate crisis—do require massive global cooperation. However, that cooperation must be wise, accountable, ethical, and always rooted in strong scientific evidence. Partnership is not an end in itself, but a tool.

Its success or failure is determined by the quality of governance, transparency, and commitment to the public interest.

Recommendations

1.  Conduct independent and transparent evaluations of the World Food Academy’s performance, including analysis of its impact on educational quality and potential bias.

2.  Strengthen due diligence mechanisms, conflict-of-interest management, and ethical standards at UNU and other UN institutions.

3.  Develop ethical, innovative university-industry partnership models oriented toward the public interest, including civil society involvement in oversight.

4.  Conduct further research in Indonesia on the impact of ultra-processed food consumption on public health and contextually appropriate national sustainable food strategies.

With rigorous scientific approaches, constructive dialogue, and shared commitment to evidence and ethics, partnerships between higher education and the private sector can become a powerful instrument for realizing a healthier, fairer, and more sustainable future for Indonesia and the world