I borrowed a book today titled "Killed: Great Journalism Too Hot to Print". In it are printed articles there were commissioned and later "killed" by editors because events have superceded the article content, advertisers threatened to pull out their ads, or the featured persons/ companies threatened to sue. The first I picked was on The Body Shop which was killed by Vanity Fair in 1994. In writing the article, the writer, Jon Entine, interviewed many exployees, ex-employees and franchisees of The Body Shop. This is what he found.
Chemical ingredients were used in their so-called 100 percent natural products; no natural ingredient was found in certain said products; and the bottles they claim to refill? All sent to the landfill. The synthetic fragrances used by the company permeated the bottles so no recycler would take their bottles. And that's only the beginning of the company's transgressions.
They were selling eye gels with potentially dangerous fumes that could irritate the eye and shampoos that contained bacteria such as e coli, which tested 1000 percent above industry max. An employee who worked in quality control said of using the shampoo, "That's like washing your hair with water from a toilet bowl."
How about the slogans and calls about trade, not aid? At one point, The Body Shop was paying the Nanhu Indians of Mexico 17 US cents per scrub mitt they made. Subsequently, Annita Roddick was asked to and refused to increase the rate despite inflation in Mexico for a few years. How much do you pay for a scrub mitt in The Body Shop?
I had always wondered how much The Body Shop paid to the communities they traded with. After all, if they could offer their staff 25% discount, what's their profit margin? Still, I figured if a reasonable amount goes toward paying these communities, The Body Shop's products are worth paying more for, right? A 1993 analysis found that payments to producers constituted one sixth of one percent of customer purchases. That's 0.167%.
I was incensed after reading this article. And I'm particularly incensed because this is a company that trumpeted social consciousness, but it's all a pack of lies. The above is just a few details I've picked from the article. If you want to know more, you can read Jon Entine's 2002 updated article that is available online.
Oh. And the reason the original article was killed in 1994? The Body Shop threatened to sue Vanity Fair if it was published.
* L'Oreal took over The Body Shop in Mar 2006. I'm not sure if there will be any difference.
Chemical ingredients were used in their so-called 100 percent natural products; no natural ingredient was found in certain said products; and the bottles they claim to refill? All sent to the landfill. The synthetic fragrances used by the company permeated the bottles so no recycler would take their bottles. And that's only the beginning of the company's transgressions.
They were selling eye gels with potentially dangerous fumes that could irritate the eye and shampoos that contained bacteria such as e coli, which tested 1000 percent above industry max. An employee who worked in quality control said of using the shampoo, "That's like washing your hair with water from a toilet bowl."
How about the slogans and calls about trade, not aid? At one point, The Body Shop was paying the Nanhu Indians of Mexico 17 US cents per scrub mitt they made. Subsequently, Annita Roddick was asked to and refused to increase the rate despite inflation in Mexico for a few years. How much do you pay for a scrub mitt in The Body Shop?
I had always wondered how much The Body Shop paid to the communities they traded with. After all, if they could offer their staff 25% discount, what's their profit margin? Still, I figured if a reasonable amount goes toward paying these communities, The Body Shop's products are worth paying more for, right? A 1993 analysis found that payments to producers constituted one sixth of one percent of customer purchases. That's 0.167%.
I was incensed after reading this article. And I'm particularly incensed because this is a company that trumpeted social consciousness, but it's all a pack of lies. The above is just a few details I've picked from the article. If you want to know more, you can read Jon Entine's 2002 updated article that is available online.
Oh. And the reason the original article was killed in 1994? The Body Shop threatened to sue Vanity Fair if it was published.
* L'Oreal took over The Body Shop in Mar 2006. I'm not sure if there will be any difference.
5 comments:
Hopefully, more consumers will use conscious objection against companies who have indefensible business practices. Thanks for sharing.
Wah so cheem! I only understand the last line about loreal taking over body shop....I don't use bodyshop so won't affect me....tee-hee
SL - I'm most happy to. Just feel that more people should know about this.
Suzie - you're exaggerating. :)
Ya, got reprimanded by your mother...said you did so much research and all i could comment was "so cheem".....sigh!
Lol... no worries. I'm not offended. :)
Post a Comment