A lot of people have been talking about The Body Shop in their research. Not only are people using it as an example of how a company can be ethical and profitable, and in fact why those profits are often driven by ethics, some people have been talking about how it was sold because shareholders wanted to make more profit and not be so ethical anymore. Consider the following articles:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4817814.stm
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/body-shops-popularity-plunges-after-loreal-sale-473599.html
http://www.cosmeticsdesign-europe.com/Business-Financial/Body-Shop-owner-defends-selling-to-L-Oreal
What's the point of these articles?
Basically, it's to illustrate that in 2006 The Body Shop was merged with the French cosmetics firm L'Oreal. Why would this be a problem? Because L'Oreal conducted animal testing at the time, something that the Body Shop was always against. Also, L'Oreal was part-owned by the Swiss food conglomorate Nestle. Would The Body Shop be able to retain its core values now that it had been merged with less 'ethical' companies?
Even though it's not said directly, we can infer from this that the shareholders in The Body Shop collectively decided to 'cash in' on the success of their business and sell to a bigger company. Nevermind that the bigger companies were not quite as ethical as The Body Shop: it was an opportunity to make a return on the investment. This could possibly link to Bullet Point 1, because owners of the business ultimately want returns for their shares and profit, not ethics. Milton Friedman would have been proud.
No comments:
Post a Comment