L'Oreal to buy Body Shop?
Test Dept. | 23.02.2006 13:55 | Animal Liberation | Globalisation | Health | South Coast | World
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000085&sid=a2oqPfXIeh50
quote:
"Body Shop isn't 'the wacky, ethical business it once was and has been going upmarket in recent years, selling more expensive skincare, so an approach from cosmetics giant L'Oreal isn't that big a surprise,' said Nick Bubb, an analyst at Evolution Securities in London.
Note that L'Oreal still test on animals, despite the purported "ethical" stance in their marketing:
http://www.naturewatch.org/shoppingguide/loreal_facts.asp
Two possibilities arise from this. Either:
a) Body Shop will become L'Oreal's "ethical" brand, to tap into the lucrative liberal middle-class guilt market
b) Body Shop will quietly drop their "Against Animal Testing" commitments, and adopt instead the same weaselly "but we never test on animals any more than we need to" line that L'Oreal currently pitch.
The arguments for and against medical testing on animals are complex and need not be run through again here. But torturing animals so that you can wear your favorite brandname cosmetic is indefensible.
It's no surprise that "ethical" capitalist outfits like Body Shop, Ben & Jerry's etc. sell out as soon as the payout from a suitor megacorp is big enough. But it's doubly sickening to see body Shop entertaining offers from animal torturers like L'Oreal.
Anita, enjoy your payout: you stand to gain around 180 million dollars from the sale. It's good to see you don't plan to sell yourself too cheap.
Test Dept.
Additions
The response from Body Shop...
17.03.2006 11:47
http://w3.cantos.com/cantos/dyn/org.php?o=3900021&s=34000195&CantosSID=7458b2b525d30648d37d274724b2e612_C
An interesting view if you're interested in this story.
maison
e-mail:
maison_3@hotmail.com
Comments
Hide the following 8 comments
Two comments - one, followed by another, both by the same dude.
23.02.2006 17:03
The Body Shop Ltd started off as a privately owned company. But somewhere down the line, Anita decided that she should float it on the stock exchange to raise money in order to expand the business so that it could do more nice ethical stuff than ever before and also understandably so that she could live a well deserved more comfortable lifestyle. After all, what's the point in working hard to start a successful business if you don't get to be a millionaire a few years down the line.
So, the majority of the shares in this company have not been owned by Anita for a very long time now. It is not to Anita that L'Oreal are making the bid. It is to the fund managers who own most of the shares.
Anita is not selling out. She sold out a long time ago, naively believing that putting the company on the stock exchange would not destroy its independence or her control over it.
--
By the way, did you know that L'Oreal is itself owned by Nestle?
--
That bloke who said it's "not the wacky, ethical business it used to be" is a total fuckhead. He's implying that to be ethical is somehow "wacky and crazy and outa this world, man". Gotta be a bit of a hippy if you're going to be ethical. Normal business people don't bother being ethical, oh no. Only weird strange, wacky, zany eccentrics would even think of it.
UH?????
Look ethical up in the dictionary. It just means not doing something that's WRONG, ie NOT HURTING PEOPLE. Not fucking people over....
It's not some luxury or exotic idea for people who want to be a bit trendy or a bit alternative or even just a bit self-righteous. It just means not being a fucking evil cunt. That's all ethical means. And if this guy thinks that not being a fucking evil cunt is somehow "wacky" and "zany" and a little bit "out there", then he can suck my arse.
If I met this guy, and I (hypothetically) gave him a kick in the teeth, he would think that was a bit unfair. He would think it was wrong of me to have given him a kick in the teeth. He'd say "What the hell did you do that for? That's way out of order. I can't believe you just did that". Then I could, according to his warped twisted logic, say "Well, I thought about refraining from kicking you in the teeth. But then I thought well, even though it's not very nice, I'm going to do it anyway because choosing not to would make me wacky and zany and a bit of a mad crazy hippie".
People are all too happy to talk about right and wrong when it suits them. 9/11? "That was totally immoral". Harold Shipman - was he an ethical person? "Was he fuck"
But when it comes to BUSINESS, the concept of BUSINESS having to obey some kind of moral / ethical code... the idea of BUSINESS having to constrain itself so far as to restrain from hurting other human beings - the mere suggestion that it should, shock horror, pay people evough to live (or maybe even more than that, god forbid!) or that it should resist the temptation to torture animals for the benefit of people who want to wear the latest brand of makeup, or that a company should not sell bulldozers to a hostile occupying army that is arbitrarily destroying people's houses, etc etc etc... all of that is considered, for the birds - or at best for the hippies, for the loony left, or for the bleeding heart liberals of this world. No. "The Business Of Business Is Business". "Ethics and Economics Don't Mix". "It's The Economy Stupid".
That's the way it always seems to me. "PEOPLE MUST LEARN WHAT IS RIGHT AND WHAT IS WRONG!!! PREFERABLY FROM THE BIBLE GOD DAMMIT!". But when it comes to **business** to suggest that business people should seriously be concerned about anything other than trying their hardest to make themselves rich - that is apparently considered... "wacky".
If that ain't double-think what the fuck is???
Ozymandias
A few points worth making...
25.02.2006 12:59
2. Anita and Gordon Roddick do not have control over the day to day running of the business any longer. They are significant shareholders. I don't think it's fair to throw accusations at them for 'selling themselves too cheaply' when they have little control over what offers either L'Oreal make, or The Body Shop respond to in return.
cliff ettridge
e-mail: cliffettridge@hotmail.com
Actually...
27.02.2006 14:24
FatPUnKChris
e-mail: chris@stopanimalcruelty.co.uk
body shop sell sout to l'oreal
20.03.2006 13:48
anne hudson
e-mail: elizannehudson@hotmail.com
Body Shop Sell-Out
21.03.2006 09:07
Against Animal Cruelty
Alternatives to Body Shop
23.03.2006 12:14
The only one I trust after Body Shop is Occitane...
http://www.loccitane.com/
What do you think ?
Do you have a list we can trust and products we can find in Europe(I am from Belgium).
A way to make things happen is to change the way we buy... Buy cruelty free products !
Regards,
Rudy Vissers
Vissers
e-mail: rudy.vissers@sun.com
Non-tested brands
26.03.2006 12:22
I believe Weleda and Lavera are non-animal-tested brands. Both are available from health food stores (at least they are here in France).
There is a list of non-animal-tested products on the website of French animal rights group One Voice http://www.experimentation-animale.org/ressources/produits_non_testes.html Body Shop is still listed; I've written to inform them of the proposed buyout by L'Oréal.
Let's make sure we tell as many people we can about this as Body Shop's testing policy is a major reason why people buy their brand.
Best regards
Sandra P
Paris, France
Sandra
cutting your nose off to spite your face
03.04.2006 15:30
Jessamy Wood
e-mail: jessamywood@hotmail.com