It's interesting that there is no mention on DeBra's website about the tie-in. I would assume they know about it (although it's not unknown for companies to appropriate charity names for their own marketing purposes without telling them!) Cause related marketing - which is what this is - is a very tricky area for charities. It can back fire if, for example your beneficiaries or supporters aren't happy about either the company you are working with or their products, services, values or means of raising funds.
For what it is worth, I do not like any kind of "fundraiser" that plays on the sexual exploitation of any person. A firefighter in North Wales was disciplined a few years ago for appearing nude in a charity calendar. The Fire Service were not happy about playing up to the firefighters-are-sexy-not-professionals or the fact that it sends the message that firefighters are only male. In any case, in my book, two wrongs don't make a right, what's sauce for the goose doesn't make sauce for the gander, etc.
LeBOF explained pretty clearly the difference between sexualised and objectified and just plain nude, for any who don't "get" that. Spencer Tunick is not Ben Dover, geddit?
The problem is in the message that such depictions send out - that flight attendants are a.) female and b.) sexually appealing to men and c.) legitimate for sexual objectification as well as e.) if you are thinking of a career in this field, you've got to be all these things. It also demonstrates that as a company, Ryanair has no problems with its female staff being regarded as sexualised objects - and with even their CEO fondling the bottoms of his employees, I mean jeez louise, that's crass.