Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

News

L'Oreal (nearly 50% Nestle owned) buy Body Shop

57 replies

chicaguapa · 17/03/2006 09:29

Another company to boycott. Frankly I'm astonished and appalled that Anita Roddick agreed to sell her self-built business based on her ethical stance on animal testing to a company that - not only is boycotted by the anti-Nestle brigade - but also definitely tests their products on animals! I think the £130m will have helped her moral dilemma and she should now give back her knighthood. Her ethical views were easily compromised!

OP posts:
kitegirl · 20/03/2006 07:21

Saddened but not surprised. As investors/shareholders want to exit (retire, move their investment elsewhere etc), often their only option is to sell, and Body Shop had grown so big that the only buyers big enough were big multinationals. Same thing happened to Ben & Jerry Ice Cream, who sold to Unilever. It seems that ethical companies can stay ethical only if they sacrifice profit growth. But you are not going to attract investment if you cannot provide growth for that investment. We need an alternative capital market. One of my loooooooooooooong term projects and pipe dreams..... Smile

Jensmum · 20/03/2006 08:24

I'm going to sound really stupid now but why are people anti-Nestle?

How did they cause deaths?

Sorry if this is a stupid question is just I've never heard of any of it before

GeorginaA · 20/03/2006 08:31

Greenpeace had a campaign against Body Shop a long while ago:

\link{http://www.mcspotlight.org/beyond/companies/bodyshop.html\What's Wrong With The Body Shop - A Criticism of 'Green' Consumerism}

So I can't see that being taken over by L'Oreal is going to mean much, tbh.

DominiConnor · 20/03/2006 09:08

Nestle heavily market powdered baby milk in poor countries. This is expensive stuff reducing overall family wealth considerably in places where being poor often kills. Often to save money it will be over diluted.

But the big bad out of this is bad water. A woman's body is evolved to be highly effective at filtering out infection from water.
The media likes to fixate upon AIDS, but actually diahorrhea kills far more, msotly children. Dehydration and related conditions are extremely dangerouos for very small kids.
Nestle has used the high levels of corruption in poor countries to get the government to help them market this crap as "good".

also of course if there is some problem in local food supply, the mothers milk has dried up, so they cannot fall back on this.

Also the immunity kids pick up through proteins absorbed from mothers is vastly more important in countries where infection is rampant.

Of course it's necessary to use some formula milk for when breastfeeding is not available. But Nestles behaviour has killed many children.

It will come as no surprise that not only does Nestle give big money to the Labour party and even a former manager of the firm is one of their MPs, and that Labour peers have found it necessary to defend their behaviour.

The tories would of course do the same thing, but Nestle doesn't feel the need to get in with them because until recently the Welsh nationalists were more likely to form the next government.

lunarx · 20/03/2006 09:48

amazing how Anita Roddick sold out.

i stopped being a Body Shop fan years ago (in favour of Lush).. it just surprised me that she actually sold to such a company that already has such a stranglehold on high street brands:(

Orlando · 20/03/2006 10:37

She's on Woman's hour now.

Keep talking Anita... I'm still not convinced.

DominiConnor · 20/03/2006 13:09

BBC coverage of anything is based upon "first find a celebrity". But actually Body Shop is a public listed company of which she owns about 18% so it's not entirely her decision.

It is her decision to stay on as a "consultant", and it's not absolutely impossible that feels she can do some good working from the inside. I doubt that personally, indeed I'm not exactly sure what "good" means in this context. L'Oreal is not a big polluter amd the biggest vairiable in it's spending is advertising. They amy not even be able to reduce their animal testing much and stay in business.
My reading of the technology tea leaves is that we've recently entered a period of rapid innovation in the techniques for skin care and cosmetics. That means that to stay competitive a business has to do more testing, not less.

Also, as we see here, having "caring" as part of your corporate image is a highly risky strategy.
Giving jobs to 3rd world poor may be seen as help or exploitration. Saying "against" animal testing runs risks of some awful side effect from the chemicals, and of course people who are really against it are against all testing for cosmetics, and "a bit less 5 years ago", is just annoying to them. And of course if you set yourself up as "moral", you are seen as easier to blackmail by pressure groups.

My guess is that her "consultancy" is hush money. In return for money and the chance to apppear "caring" at some big events with L'Oreal's top tier of celebrity faces, she doesn't attack them.

That being said I don't think L'Oreal are themselves particularly bad people. Yes they are owned by bad people, but you can't control who you are owned by.
Pret A Manger is partly owned by McDonalds.
Not something you hear them talk about much.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Swipe left for the next trending thread