The Body Shop Becomes Multinational Profit Shop.
By CampervanHan. – apologies for the late posting, I’ve been ill!
Last week UK cosmetics company, The Body Shop, was sold to L’Oreal for a reported £652.3 million. The Body Shop, founded by Anita Roddick, the daughter of Italian immigrants, started in a small Brighton premises. The company very quickly established itself as one of the leading natural cosmetics manufacturers, and now have over 2,000 stores worldwide, 304 of these are in the UK.
Anita and Gordon Roddick are said to have netted £130 million from the sale of their 19% stake in the company, and as far as many ethical consumers are concerned, Anita Roddick has abandoned her values and sold her principles to L’Oreal, the worlds biggest cosmetics company who own brands including Lancôme, Cacharel, Garnier, Maybelline and Ambre Solaire. Roddick is said to have announced that this “is the best 30th birthday present that The Body Shop could have received.”
In 1999 The Body Shop was voted the second most trusted brand in the UK by the Consumer Association. According to the company profile The Body Shop products are made entirely ecologically, according to very strict standards respecting man and environment and the company have always been aggressively opposed to animal testing. L’Oreal banned animal testing of its products in 1989 but still allows ingredients that have been tested on animals to be used in its products. L’Oreal have long been the target of anti-vivisection groups, environmental organisations and ethical consumer groups as the company also allows harmful chemicals in its products and are part owned by Nestle.
The Body Shop head offices are in Watersmead, Littlehampton, and the administrative and manufacturing operations employ over 1,000 people in an area desperately in need of employment opportunities. The sale comes as no surprise to those who had suspected The Body Shop of manufacturing products for other companies. For the last 2 years insiders at the manufacturing plant have reported that The Body Shop have been making products for L’Oreal, Debenhams, and Molton Brown.
In the late 1990’s The Body Shop profits dropped rapidly causing an overhaul of management structures, the purchasing of franchised shops, and outsourcing operations. I fear that this time profits will drop rapidly because faithful customers of The Body Shop will now be voting with their wallets and will not be putting money into the pockets of multinational companies like L’Oreal and Nestle trading behind the ethical principles that The Body Shop once had. I think I’ll be purchasing shares in Faith In Nature and Urtekram, both highly transparent companies, who lets hope, 30 years down the line don’t sell out to some Nestle shite company.
www.ethicalconsumer.org
www.thebodyshopinternational.com
www.thebodyshop.com
www.buav.org/cosmetics/bluffersguide.html
www.animalaid.org
www.uncaged.co.uk
END
By CampervanHan. – apologies for the late posting, I’ve been ill!
Last week UK cosmetics company, The Body Shop, was sold to L’Oreal for a reported £652.3 million. The Body Shop, founded by Anita Roddick, the daughter of Italian immigrants, started in a small Brighton premises. The company very quickly established itself as one of the leading natural cosmetics manufacturers, and now have over 2,000 stores worldwide, 304 of these are in the UK.
Anita and Gordon Roddick are said to have netted £130 million from the sale of their 19% stake in the company, and as far as many ethical consumers are concerned, Anita Roddick has abandoned her values and sold her principles to L’Oreal, the worlds biggest cosmetics company who own brands including Lancôme, Cacharel, Garnier, Maybelline and Ambre Solaire. Roddick is said to have announced that this “is the best 30th birthday present that The Body Shop could have received.”
In 1999 The Body Shop was voted the second most trusted brand in the UK by the Consumer Association. According to the company profile The Body Shop products are made entirely ecologically, according to very strict standards respecting man and environment and the company have always been aggressively opposed to animal testing. L’Oreal banned animal testing of its products in 1989 but still allows ingredients that have been tested on animals to be used in its products. L’Oreal have long been the target of anti-vivisection groups, environmental organisations and ethical consumer groups as the company also allows harmful chemicals in its products and are part owned by Nestle.
The Body Shop head offices are in Watersmead, Littlehampton, and the administrative and manufacturing operations employ over 1,000 people in an area desperately in need of employment opportunities. The sale comes as no surprise to those who had suspected The Body Shop of manufacturing products for other companies. For the last 2 years insiders at the manufacturing plant have reported that The Body Shop have been making products for L’Oreal, Debenhams, and Molton Brown.
In the late 1990’s The Body Shop profits dropped rapidly causing an overhaul of management structures, the purchasing of franchised shops, and outsourcing operations. I fear that this time profits will drop rapidly because faithful customers of The Body Shop will now be voting with their wallets and will not be putting money into the pockets of multinational companies like L’Oreal and Nestle trading behind the ethical principles that The Body Shop once had. I think I’ll be purchasing shares in Faith In Nature and Urtekram, both highly transparent companies, who lets hope, 30 years down the line don’t sell out to some Nestle shite company.
www.ethicalconsumer.org
www.thebodyshopinternational.com
www.thebodyshop.com
www.buav.org/cosmetics/bluffersguide.html
www.animalaid.org
www.uncaged.co.uk
END
Comments
Hide the following comment
The body Shop has long been the focus of criticism
25.03.2006 00:46
'WHAT'S WRONG WITH THE BODY SHOP?
- a criticism of 'green' consumerism -
REFERENCED VERSION - all the facts and opinions in the London Greenpeace A5 'Body Shop' leaflet validated. Note: most references are given just by way of example.
The Body Shop have successfully manufactured an image of being a caring company that is helping to protect the environment [1] and indigenous peoples [2], and preventing the suffering of animals [3] - whilst selling 'natural' products [4]. But behind the green and cuddly image lies the reality - the Body Shop's operations, like those of all multinationals, have a detrimental effect on the environment [5] and the world's poor [6]. They do not help the plight of animals [7] or indigenous peoples [8] (and may be having a harmful effect), and their products are far from what they're cracked up to be [9]. They have put themselves on a pedestal in order to exploit people's idealism [10] - so this leaflet has been written as a necessary response.
Companies like the Body Shop continually hype their products through advertising and marketing, often creating a demand for something where a real need for it does not exist [11]. The message pushed is that the route to happiness is through buying more and more of their products. The increasing domination of multinationals and their standardised products is leading to global cultural conformity [12]. The world's problems will only be tackled by curbing such consumerism - one of the fundamental causes of world poverty, environmental destruction and social alienation [13].
FUELLING CONSUMPTION AT THE EARTH'S EXPENSE
etc
=================================================
'The dispute revolves around Cultural SurvivalÆs "rainforest harvest" projects, which involve selling non-timber forest products on the international market. Cultural Survival has worked with the natural cosmetic company, The Body Shop , on several high-profile projects, contracting with the Kayapo in Brazil to supply ingredients for Body Shop cosmetics. Cultural Survival also promotes "Rainforest Crunch," a snack containing nuts from the Brazilian rainforest (used in Ben & JerryÆs Rainforest Crunch ice-cream), and has worked with several other companies to sell rainforest products in U.S. markets.
Cultural Survival views the marketing strategy as a means of generating income for impoverished indigenous communities while helping these communities to protect the environment. "By developing markets for products that are harvested without destroying rain forests, we provide indigenous producers, First and Third World governments, NGOs [non-governmental organizations], international banking organizations and development agencies with a compelling economic incentive to protect the rainforest and its residents," writes Jason Clay, director of research at Cultural Survival, in a recent issue of the organizationÆs quarterly publication.
Survival International, however, has recently released statements expressing "grave reservations about the current ærainforest harvestÆ concept, both in theory and practice," charging that marketing schemes promote the dangerous notion that the future of indigenous communities should be tied to their economic viability, and that the harvest projects divert attention away from more urgent issues like land demarcation. "Are we really going to let business and profits dictate conservation and human rights strategies and goals?" asks Stephen Corry, director-general of Survival International.
etc
Brian