Green marketing refers to the process of selling products and/or services based on their environmental benefits. Such a product or service may be environmentally friendly in itself or produced and/or packaged in an environmentally friendly way.

The obvious assumption of green marketing is that potential consumers will view a product or service's "greenness" as a benefit and base their buying decision accordingly (Goyder, 2006). The not-so-obvious assumption of green marketing is that consumers will be willing to pay more for green products than they would for a less-green comparable alternative product - an assumption that, in my opinion, has not been proven conclusively (Entine, 1995).

While green marketing is growing greatly as increasing numbers of consumers are willing to back their environmental consciousnesses with their dollars, it can be dangerous. The public tends to be skeptical of green claims to begin with and companies can seriously damage their brands and their sales if a green claim is discovered to be false or contradicted by a company's other products or practices. Presenting a product or service as green when it's not is called greenwashing (Valvasore, 2009).

Greenwashing is the practice of making an unsubstantiated or misleading claim about the environmental benefits of a product, service, technology or company practice(Goyder,2006). Greenwashing can make a company appear to be more environmentally friendly than it really is. It can also be used to differentiate a company's products or services from its competitors by promising more efficient use of power or by being more cost-effective over time.

As the green computing movement has grown, some technology vendors and hardware manufacturers have engaged in greenwashing, changing their packaging, advertising or branding to focus consumer's attention on green manufacturing, recycling or energy-saving benefits(Entine,1995). The increased transparency and scrutiny many corporations have been exposed to by nongovernmental organizations, advocacy groups and collaborative citizen journalism in the blogosphere all have helped to reveal which environmental claims are accurate and which are not (Goyder, 2006).

Consumers researching their buying decisions can consult the National Advertising Division (NAD) of Council of Better Business Bureaus (CBBB), which administers a system of voluntary self-regulation for the advertising industry. Online, site likes coopamerica.org, treehugger.com, corpwatch.org, greenbiz.com and others provide additional assistance. As blogged by Marketing Green, social bookmarking Web sites like DotheRightThing.org are allowing consumers to read news articles and rate the actions of the companies involved, based upon the perceived positive or negative environmental impact.

With the surge in environmental awareness of the general public companies are fast coming to the realization that being green or environmentally responsible has rewards(Kent and Stone,2007). Environmentally friendly products are in greater demand, consumers are choosing healthy goods and companies are being punished by clients, consumers and the stock market for ecologically unsound, unsustainable or polluting practices(Valvasore,2009). This demand for clean and green means that there is also a corresponding increase in the unscrupulous practice of claiming green credentials, when in fact there are none, or very little(Goyder,2006). This practice has become known as 'green washing', a term that is derived from 'whitewashing' and 'green' the colloquial name adopted for all things associated with a healthy environment.

Greenwashing Defined

Green washing can be defined as the misleading act of companies, industries, governments, organizations and individuals trying to promote unjustified environmentally friendly practices, products and services through branding, mislabeling, packaging or public relations (Valvasore,2009) .

History of Green Washing

The term greenwashing is believed to have been coined in 1986 when environmentalist Jay Westerveld observed the practice of hotels encouraging guests to reuse bath towels as an effort to help the environment. It gave the impression that hotels were pursuing efforts to be more ecologically sound. The reality was that they had no other environmentally positive policies and simply saved massive amounts of money on laundry costs (Goyder,2006).

Examples of Greenwashing

Examples of greenwashing include:

· Airbus advertisements with jet aeroplane silhouettes filled with pristine landscape images

· Mobil Chemical adding some starch to their 'Hefty' trash bags which where then labeled as biodegradable. They were sued for the biodegradability claims and removed the term from their packaging and advertising BAE Systems promoting weapons as environmentally friendly Shell advertising that insinuated oil refineries emitted fresh flowers instead of pollutants

· Exxon Mobil indicating they were reducing greenhouse gas emissions while they were actually increasing The $200 million public relations and advertising campaign to rebrand BP as an environmentally friendly company with the slogan 'Beyond Petroleum' while little changed within the company formed as a merger of British Petroleum and Amoco

· Giant supermarket chain Woolworth’s marketing tissues using a 'Sustainable Forest Fibre' logo with the tagline that they came from "a certified environmentally managed company that is environmentally, socially and economically responsible"(Harrison, 2006). The environmental claims were disputed and subsequently withdrawn - although the products were returned to the shelves in different packaging

· Shell attempting to sponsor prestigious wildlife photography exhibition

How to Spot Greenwashing

For the most part, environmentally friend claims that are actually greenwashing are easy to spot when you think skeptically (Kent and Stone, 2007). Signs that something may be a case of greenwashing include:

1. Vague or confusing language

2. The use of pseudoscientific terms

3. Claims that are unable to be proven or disproved

4. Petroleum based/reliant or obviously non-ecofriendly products claiming to be green

THE BODY SHOP V/S L’OREAL CONTROVERSY

On March 17, 2006, The Body Shop International Plc. (Body Shop), a retailer of natural-based and ethically-sourced beauty products, announced that it had agreed to be acquired by the beauty care giant L’Oréal SA5 (L’Oréal) in a cash deal worth £652 million (US$ 1.14 billion). The deal valued the shares of Body Shop at a premium of 34.2 percent to their price before the acquisition.

It was also a major windfall for its founder Dame Anita Roddick (Roddick).

Following this announcement, Body Shop and Roddick came under severe criticism. Body Shop was regarded by many as one of the pioneers of modern corporate social responsibility (CSR). The company was also strongly associated with the social activism of Roddick. Since its inception, the company had endorsed and championed various social issues that complemented its core values - opposition to animal testing, developing community trade, building self-esteem, campaigning for human rights, and protection of the planet. Body Shop was one of the first companies to publish a ‘Values Report’ in 1996. Through these initiatives, the company had cultivated a loyal customer base who shared these values of the company.

On the other hand, L’Oréal was viewed by activists as the face of modern consumerism – a company that tested its cosmetics on animals, exploited the sexuality of women, and sold their products by making women feel insecure. Moreover, Nestlé owned 26 percent of L’Oréal. Nestlé was one of the most boycotted companies in the world for its alleged unethical business practices and aggressive promotion of baby milk in developing countries.

Body Shop’s critics said that they felt betrayed by the deal as Roddick had previously been quite vocal in her criticism of companies like L’Oréal. They called for a boycott of Body Shop’s products as they felt that the company had sold out its values and principles. Body Shop and Roddick defended the deal by saying that L’Oréal would not compromise Body Shop’s ethics and that the merger would give Body Shop a chance to spread its values to L’Oréal. L’Oréal also announced that Body Shop’s values would not be compromised and that it would continue to operate as an independent unit. Many analysts were concerned that Body Shop’s image would be affected by the acquisition. Some activists felt that Body Shop would not be able to function independently and that an important partner in CSR had been lost. However, they were a few who felt that Body Shop’s values would rub in on L’Oréal and believed that the deal had some positives. There were also questions raised about whether L’Oréal was trying to improve its image and buy CSR through this deal. But for Body Shop’s staunchest critics, the acquisition by L’Oréal was vindication of their view that Body Shop was nothing more than a greenwasher.

This case discusses:

· the reactions of consumers, activists, and CSR experts to the acquisition of Body Shop by L'Oréal.

· Is Body Shop guilty of greenwashing? Does it have the influence to extend its values to L'Oréal?

· The case also looks into the issue of whether L'Oréal was trying to improve its own image and to buy CSR through this deal.

The BODY SHOP

In March 1976, the Roddicks set up their first Body Shop store at Brighton, UK. The store sold around 15 lines of homemade cosmetics made with natural ingredients such as jojoba oil, rhassoul mud, etc.

From its very early days, Body Shop was associated with the social activism of Roddick. The windows of Body Shop stores featured bills of local charity and community events. Roddick was also very critical of what she called the environmental insensitivity of industry and called for a change in standard corporate practices. The second store was opened six months after the opening of the first store.

Roddick gave the company’s products brand names such as, Tea Tree Oil Facial Wash, Mango Dry Mist, etc. Unlike other branded cosmetics, the packaging of its products contained detailed descriptions of the ingredients and their properties.

Body Shop’s core brand identity was its “profits-with-a-principle” philosophy and the brand was closely associated with the social justice agenda. This was a revolutionary idea at the time, and Body Shop developed a loyal customer base.

By the late 1970s, it had a number of franchisee stores throughout the UK. Body Shop was growing at a rate of 50 percent annually and was also getting a lot of media attention. In 1978, Body Shop’s first foreign franchisee opened in Brussels, Belgium. In the 1980s, the Roddicks acquired the US rights to the “Body Shop”. In April 1984, the stock of Body Shop opened for the first time on London’s Unlisted Securities Market.

In 1986, the Body Shop formed an alliance with Greenpeace for the “Save the Whales” campaign and later on formed an alliance with Friends of the Earth (FOE) in 1990. It also teamed up with Amnesty International and from the 1990s onwards became very vocal in its support for international human rights.

In 1991, Roddick was awarded the World Vision Award for Development.

During the 1980s and 1990s, Body Shop had its share of critics who accused the company of hypocrisy as they felt that it was making profits under the guise of endorsing social equality. On the other hand, some shareholders complained that instead of maximizing profits, the company was diverting money into “social work” projects. However, the company had shown strong growth through the 1980s and at its height, in 1991, the company was worth £700 million. But then the company faced many challenges.

Though the company continued to grow in size, its market value was on the decline. The board had also got tired of Roddick’s radicalism, her combative stance on globalization, and vocal criticism of anti-wrinkle creams.

In 1998, Roddick was forced to step down as the CEO and Patrick Gournay (Gournay) replaced her. Her critics felt that her radicalism had done more harm to the company than good and were happy that she had stepped down.

In 1999, Gournay initiated a restructuring exercise and decided to concentrate on new products. Body Shop exited manufacturing and wholesaling, and focused on retailing. One-fourth of the product line was trimmed and the company bought out franchises that were not in a sound financial position. In 2000, Roddick announced that she would quit the board in two years.

However, she continued to carry out PR functions for Body Shop and also traveled the world in search of new product ideas. In fiscal year 2001, the operating profits of the company had decreased to £18.2 million when compared to £33.0 million in fiscal year 2000. Some management control problems also surfaced in Body Shop’s franchise structure. There were also discussions on the possible buyout of Body Shop.

In 2002, both Anita and Gordon Roddick stepped down as co-chairmen and were replaced by Adrian Bellamy (Bellamy). Gournay also quit as the CEO and was replaced by Peter Saunders who was the CEO of the company’s North American operations. The new chairman shelved the idea of selling the company.

Since 2002, Body Shop started working on repositioning itself to the ‘masstige’22 sector of the consumer market. The re-positioning exercise began to bear fruit. For the fiscal year ended February 2003, Body Shop reported that its pre-tax profits were £20.4 million, when compared to £11.6 million in the previous year. The turnaround in its performance was followed by strong growth in the next two years. As of March 2006, Body Shop had 2,085 branches around the world, including 304 in the UK. Its brand portfolio consisted of more than 600 products

On March 17, 2006, Body Shop announced that it had agreed to be taken over by L’Oréal in a £652 million (US$ 1.14 billion) deal. L’Oréal offered 300 pence a share, a premium of 34.2 percent to Body Shop’s closing share price of 223.5 pence on February 21, 2006.

L’Oréal said that the management team at Body Shop would be retained and it would be allowed to preserve its independent identity. Roddick would also continue to act as a consultant. Combining L’Oréal’s expertise and knowledge of international markets with The Body Shop’s distinct culture and values will benefit both companies.

The deal was also a major windfall for the Roddicks, as they would receive £117 million for their 18 percent stake in the company. The announcement of the deal had surprised many. Over the years, Roddick had been quite vocal in her criticism of L’Oréal. She had vociferously accused the cosmetic industry of making women insecure and particularly criticized L’Oréal for its alleged policy of employing only “sexy” saleswomen on its counters.

On June 1, 2006, the two companies went on with the deal as European Commission (EC) cleared the takeover and said that the takeover would not result in higher prices for cosmetics, nor would it impede competition in the European Union (EU).

THE INITIATIVES BY BODY SHOP IN CSR

Body Shop was regarded as one among the first firms in the world to publish a proper report on its social responsibility initiatives. In addition to social activism, internal audit programs were conducted at Body Shop for environmental protection, health and safety at work, and the monitoring of ‘Against Animal Testing Policy’. In 1991, it drafted the EU Eco-Management and Audit Regulation (EMAS), and in 1992, Body Shop published its first environmental statement called ‘The Green Book’. Till 1994, the company continued to publish its independently verified annual environmental statements. In January 1996, it published its first ‘Values Report’. The report contained results of a social audit of Body Shop as well as its environmental and animal protection performance. Subsequently, in January 1998, Body Shop published its second ‘Values Report’. The report included results of Body Shop’s integrated internal management systems audit and accounting processes in the area of social, environmental, and animal protection(Edwards,2006)..

The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and Sustain Ability ranked both the Values Reports highly in their international benchmarking surveys of corporate environmental reports.

The major Corporate Social Responsibility initiatives taken by Body Shop include the following:

· Body Shop did not test its cosmetic products on animals and did not commission others to do it on its behalf, as it considered this practice unethical. Along with customers and animal protection groups, Body Shop campaigned for a change in the law on the testing of animals for cosmetics purposes in the UK, Europe, the Netherlands, Germany, and Japan.

· It was also one of the few companies that complied with the Humane Cosmetic Standards (HCS). In fact, it was the first international cosmetics company to sign the HCS in 1996.

· Body Shop also ensured that ingredients derived from animals were suitable for vegetarians and did not cause harm to the animal from which it was derived.

· In 2004, TheBody Shop Foundation (BSF), awarded £20,000 to The Centre for Alternatives to Animal Testing at John Hopkins University to support research into alternatives that could substitute animal testing.

· In 2005, the company was awarded the first place in the cosmetics category for ‘Achieving Higher Standards of Animal Welfare’ by the Royal Society for the Protection of Animals.

· In 2006, it was awarded Europe’s first annual Proggy Awards32 in the “Best Cruelty-Free Cosmetics” category, presented by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA).

· Body Shop Supported Community Trade. In the late 1980s, Body Shop purchased its first Community Trade product (CTP). Through CTP, Body Shop sourced products from marginalized communities for a fair price in a sustainable way. For instance, it sourced marula oil from Namibia, bananas from Caribbean, beeswax and honey from traditional beekeepers in Zambia, shea butter from a women’s group in Ghana, etc. Body Shop guaranteed a living wage for its Community Trade suppliers and their workers through a predictable and long-term business relationship.

· Body Shop marketed products honestly, did not make misleading claims and product promises. It promoted diversity, acceptance and empowerment in its workplace, and maintained equal opportunities standards. Employees were groomed through volunteering, training, and personal development programs.

· In 1995, it ran a “Women’s Rights Campaign” during the fourth UN World Conference on Women. In 1997 it supported a debate on self-esteem by the Sophia Institute in Singapore. In addition to this, Body Shop UK sponsored an Oxford University research project that looked at the self-esteem of young women and worked with the UK Guide Association to produce a self-esteem activity pack called ‘The Can Do Girls’.

· In 1996, Body Shop published and distributed globally ‘The Body and Self Esteem’, to raise awareness of the issue of self-esteem.

· In 2003, Body Shop launched a global campaign against domestic violence called ‘Stop Violence in the Home’. From its stores in the UK, the company raised £90,000 for the charity organization Refuge in less than six months through the sale of badges and the recycling of 18,000 mobile phones. Each of these phones helped raise £2.75 for Refuge and its beneficiaries - women and children affected by domestic violence. In 2004, Body Shop’s customers helped raise over £500,000 through the ‘Stop Violence in the Home’ campaign.

· Defending human rights is another core value of the company as it felt that it is the responsibility of every individual to actively support those whose human rights are denied. It ensured that its products were sourced and produced in regions where human and civil rights were respected and adhered to, as set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

· The Body Shop conducted and supported many Human Rights campaigns. For instance, in 1998, Body Shop Australia ran a “Thumbs Up for Reconciliation” campaign in support of reconciliation between black and white Australians. In 2000, Body Shop launched its Human Rights Awards.

· In addition to adhering to all relevant international Human Rights Standards in areas such as working conditions, protection of privacy, etc., Body Shop also benchmarked its employee management policies against international standards.

· Body Shop was a founding member of the Ethical Trade Initiative (ETI) and strove to ensure that its suppliers complied with the ethical trade standards. Being a member of Supplier Ethical Data Exchange (SEDEX), Body Shop insisted on and ensured that its suppliers conducted regular ethical assessments.

· Body Shop said that it aimed to be a sustainable business and considered protection of the planet as a key responsibility. In 1986, the company began its campaign for protection of the planet. The company developed its first international environmental policy in 1992. Body Shop supported materials and technologies that caused minimal harm to the environment and promoted the use of renewable resources and sustainable ingredients.

· It partnered with Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, WWF US and the US Campaign for Safe Cosmetics to ensure that its policies for chemicals use were environmentally responsible. The company had also set itself a target of becoming a carbon neutral retailer by 2010.

· Body Shop strove to ensure that its policies and practices regarding wood products were in line with the best sustainability practices. It was a supporter of the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certification scheme. Body Shop was also a member of the World Wildlife UK Forest and Trade Network.

· The company made regular donations to charitable organizations including The Body Shop Foundation (BSF), its charitable trust that was set up in 1990. The trust supported charities working on environmental, animal welfare and human rights issues. As of April 2006, Body Shop had donated over £8 million to BSF.

CRITICISM OF BODY SHOP’S CSR

Though the company had a distinguished record as a pioneer of corporate responsibility, it had its fair share of critics. From the 1990s, Body Shop faced increased scrutiny regarding its activities and claims.

· Business ethics expert Jon Entine (Entine) was one of Body Shop’s fiercest critics. Entine accused Body Shop and its founders of being hypocrites, as in his opinion, they were preying on the idealism of consumers, while not being any different from other companies in their pursuit of profit. In 1994, Entine reported that Charity Commission for England and Wales records did not show any charitable contributions from the company in its first 11 years of operation. In the subsequent years, its contribution to charity was less than 1.5 percent of pretax profits (which was the average contribution made by US corporates).

· Entine also said that the company made false claims that its products were natural. He alleged that there was extensive use of petrochemicals in the preparation of Body Shop’s products. He quoted many ex-employees who had claimed that the stories put out to customers about various products were totally fabricated.

· In 1998, McSpotlight57 and Greenpeace UK put forward similar criticisms that Body Shop exploited the public by championing various agendas while it was actually more similar to other corporate entities. They said that Body Shop’s products were not natural, but had been synthesized and produced. Though the company claimed that it was against animal testing, its products contained ingredients that had been tested on animals by other companies.

· Critics also dismissed the company’s CTP as a mere marketing ploy as it accounted for less than one percent of sales of Body Shop products. Body Shop was also accused of paying exploitative wages and having an anti-trade union stance.

· The company was also accused of being very aggressive in its response to any form of criticism and allegedly tried to intimidate its critics through invectives and/or lawsuits.

Criticisms of Body Shop intensified after the company announced that it had agreed to be taken over by L’Oréal. L’Oréal did not deny that it used animal testing for cosmetics, something Body Shop founder, Roddick, had opposed throughout the 30 years of her business life. Critics (including Roddick, in the past) had campaigned against L’Oréal’s alleged exploitation of the sexuality of women.

There were also several calls to boycott Body Shop’s products.

John Ruane, director of Naturewatch, said, “She appears to be taking the money and running. Clearly all the money that goes into the till at Body Shop in the future effectively amounts to supporting L’Oréal and, by association, disgusting animal testing. Consumers can make their feelings clear by not shopping at Body Shop.”

Another reason why the sale of Body Shop to L’Oréal was criticized was that Nestlé was a large shareholder (26 percent) in L’Oréal. Nestlé had been strongly criticized by activists for several decades for allegedly promoting baby milk powder in the developing world. In January 2005, Nestlé was voted as the ‘least responsible company’ in an Internet poll. It was also one of the four most boycotted companies in the world and the most boycotted company in the UK.

Anti-animal testing and anti-Nestlé campaigners called for a boycott of Body Shop too. Various protests were organized by animal rights activists and they also began digging deeper behind the marketing strategies and public image of Body Shop(Edwards,2006). They used a spoof of a 1990s leaflet of Body Shop and urged Body Shop loyalists to send back their Body Shop loyalty cards to register their protests.

In response to the protests, L’Oréal clarified that it had not done any animal testing since 1989. L’Oréal said in a statement, “We have not carried out or commissioned tests of products or ingredients on animals since 1989.” But it added that it could not guarantee that all ingredients bought from other firms had not been tested on animals. Its spokeswoman said that some ingredients still had to be tested under European health and safety rules.

However, it did not stop the flow of criticism and demonstrations in front of various Body Shop stores. Many Body Shop loyalists were taken aback by the deal. Some of them said that they felt betrayed and vowed never to shop at Body Shop again. A consumer said, “The Body Shop used to be my high street ‘safe-house,’ a place where I could walk into and know that what I bought was okay, that people were actually benefiting from my purchase. By buying from the Body Shop, you are now no longer supporting ethical consumerism. If I want legitimate fair-trade, non-animal tested products, I can find them easily, at the same

price, elsewhere.”

Several anti-animal cruelty organisations struck Body Shop off from their ethical shopping lists. Ethical Consumer downgraded its ethical rating of Body Shop from 11/20 (average), to 2.5/20 (very poor), on “ethiscore”. As per the Brand Index, within three weeks of the announcement of the deal, Body Shop’s “satisfaction” rating had dropped by 11 points to 14, its “buzz” rating fell by 10 points to -4, and its “general impression” fell by three points to 19.

BODY SHOP’S RESPONSE

Body Shop clarified that the acquisition by L’Oréal would not dilute its ethical stance and that it would continue its position on anti-animal testing. Roddick justified the deal by saying that L’Oréal wanted to learn from Body Shop’s commitment to the environment and human rights in business. She also denied that she had sold out and maintained that the company’s values would not change.

Roddick agreed that she had an issue with L’Oréal over animal testing earlier, but she was now convinced that L’Oréal was sincere in its commitment to this issue.

With regard to the allegations that Body Shop marketed its products by making people feel insecure, Body Shop stated: “We do not promise eternal youth in our advertising, or prey on women’s insecurities, but focus instead on products which provide well-being and comfort.” It also said that it was committed to not using ingredients in its cosmetics that had been tested on animals for cosmetic purposes after December 31, 1990. It further pointed out that most of the ingredients used in cosmetic and toiletry products had been animal tested for some purpose at some time in their history, and it would be almost impossible to sell products whose ingredients had never been tested on animals.

IS L’ORÉAL TRYING TO BUY CSR?

Some analysts felt that the acquisition was an attempt by L’Oréal to buy CSR. They cited other instances when major multinational corporations bought up smaller, model ethical corporations such as Unilever’s acquisition of Ben and Jerry’s, The Coca Cola Company’s buyout of Odwalla, Colgate-Palmolive Company’s takeover of Tom’s of Maine, and Dean Foods’ acquisition of Horizon Organics.

Critics argued that these “model” corporations would find it difficult to continue the good work under their new parent(Harrison,2006). The economic viability of an acquisition for such a reason is also a question mark, as generally, there is a public backlash after such acquisitions. As L’Oréal was not perceived to share the principles of Body Shop, Body Shop’s association with L’Oréal raised questions about the ethical standards of Body Shop itself. Its customer base was also affected.

Critics felt that if a company is serious about CSR and ethical issues, it could cultivate this in their own organization rather than buy out a company that is considered a model organization.

VIEWPOINT

Some analysts felt that L’Oréal did not share the principles of Body Shop and that this acquisition had removed the biggest supporter of ethically-sourced beauty care products from the market. Despite the assurance to the contrary, Body Shop might not be able to function autonomously.

Though many people were concerned by the deal, some were more optimistic of the merger. Save Animals From Exploitation (SAFE) campaign director Hans Criek said, “Hopefully the Body Shop will continue to grow the message as the company expands with its new owners.” The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals82 (RSPCA) felt that the match was “odd” but urged L’Oréal to take up the Body Shop’s ethical stance on animal testing.

Analysts felt that L’Oréal’s interest would be well served if it kept its word of not interfering with the integrity of the Body Shop brand in any way that might have an adverse impact on Body Shop’s public image.Body Shop claimed that, despite some public unhappines over the deal, its business was not hurt in the period after the acquisition. It announced that sales in the eight weeks to April 22, 2006, were up 5 percent as compared to the corresponding period of 2005. Sales for the quarter (July to September) were £116 million, a growth of 8.8 percent over the corresponding period of 2005.84 The company also announced that it was looking forward to launching a number of innovative products in the fiscal year 2007, including a major new-look make-up collection and a skin care range using Aloe Vera sourced through its CTP.

However, some of Body Shop’s critics maintained that Body Shop was merely continuing its earlier unethical ways and that it was no different from any other company. It had smartly leveraged on the growth in ethical consumerism. There was a huge gap between the image projected by the company and its actual practice. For long, these critics had dismissed all talk of sustainability by Roddick as empty rhetoric. They now saw the Body Shop’s decision to be taken over by L’Oréal as a vindication of their view that Body Shop had always been a green washer.

The fact that L’Oréal acquisition of the Body Shop will provide plenty of potential growth opportunities is undisputed but the question of how well the acquisition sits in the portfolio of the worlds largest cosmetic company needs to be carefully pondered.

REFERENCES

John Entine(1995) , ‘Green washing’ , Utne reader Jan-Feb 1995

Adam Valvasori-- Values Manager, ‘Green Marketing vs Green Washing vs Green Values’ 03 July 2009

Mark Goyder, “The Body Shop and L’Oréal: Why Can’t Big be Beautiful?” Www.ethicalcorp.com, May25, 2006

“Body Shop Agrees L’Oréal Takeover,” www.news.bbc.co.uk, March 17, 2006.

“L’Oréal Buys Out Body Shop for $1.4 billion US,” www.ctv.ca, March 17 2006.

The Body Shop: Social Responsibility or Sustained Greenwashing?, ICMR Centre for Management Research, Case Code BECG067

Ceri Edwards , ‘Body Shop and L’Oreal - What next for an ethical icon?’ , EC newsdesk ,25 May 2006, www.ethicalcorp.com

‘Body Shop boycott, or April Fool?’ EC 6 april 2006, www.ethicalcorp.com

‘Body Shop takeover 'hits image', 10 April 2006, www.news.bbc.co.uk

Rob Harrison, ‘Swallowed up: ethical company takeovers’ www.ethicalconsumer.org, Ethical Consumer, Issue 101, July/August 2006

Mike W. Peng, ‘ Global Business’, Cengage learning

Tony Kent, Dominic Stone, ‘The Body Shop and the role of design in retail branding’, International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, Vol 35, Issue 7, 2007

Oliver Wagg, Managing Editor, ‘In the spotlight: The Body Shop’
Corporate Citizenship Briefing ( http://www.ccbriefing.co.uk/ )

‘Body Shop’s Shares Rise As Its Ethical Rating Plummets’ Friday, March 17th, 2006 , www.csr-news.net

The Body Shop Values Report 2007