How the Rise of Ethical Consumerism Has Affected the UK Cosmetics Industry - Research Paper Example

How the Rise of Ethical Consumerism Has Affected the UK Cosmetics Industry and Its Use of Animal Testing Abstract This research intends to find the effects of the rise of ethical consumerism on the UK cosmetics industry and especially on its use of animal testing. Two hypotheses were postulated. H1. The use of animal testing in cosmetics has had an effect on consumer buying decisions. H2. Ethical consumerism has had an affect on the cosmetics industry. To prove these hypotheses, questionnaire survey and content analysis methods were adopted, based on two basic research questions. 1. How does the use of animal testing affect the consumers' purchasing decision and buying patterns towards cosmetic products in UK? 2. How has ethical consumerism and legislation affected the UK cosmetic companies’ ethical policies on animal testing? Data collected from questionnaire survey is analyzed. It has been found that both the hypotheses were correct. Introduction In this era of globalization, one can find a wide variety of products that are manufactured at various parts of the globe. The spending power of the consumer has grown in the last three decades. The awareness of the consumer about the manufacturing procedures and raw materials used has also grown considerably. The so-called information explosion resulting from Internet boom and easy availability of all sorts of data has made customers think not only about the quality and price of a particular product but also about the way and with what material it was manufactured. Two main concerns of the general public regarding commercial manufacturing procedures are whether it would affect the ecology and cause pollution and whether it would use animals to test the products first before making it available for application on human body (Ethical Consumerism). These concerns led to the birth of a new breed of consumer: the ethical consumer. According to Ethical Consumer Magazine, the consumers are expressing their mandate for something when they purchase something. One of the examples the magazine provides is that “buying cheap clothes which have been made in sweatshops is a vote for worker exploitation.” The magazine defines ethical consumerism as follows: “Ethical consumerism is just as much about supporting the 'good' companies and products as it is withdrawing our support from the 'bad' ones.” They go on to define four approaches of ethical consumerism: 1. Positive buying, which means supporting certain products that you are sure are ethical, 2. Negative Purchasing, which means black-listing products that you strongly feel are unethical, because of either its manufacturing method or its actual functioning. 3. Company-based purchasing, which means black-listing a business concern that indulges in unethical means of manufacturing as a whole and thereby avoiding all the products made by that company. 4. Fully-screened approach, which means examining both the companies and the products and then deciding which product is the most ethical (What is an 'Ethical Consumer'). In short, ethical consumerism means that buying things that are made without causing harm to or exploitation of humans, animals or the natural environment (Ethical Consumerism). Animal testing is a centuries old practice both in medicine and in chemistry. Animal testing is defined as follows: “Before researchers test pharmaceuticals in human clinical trials, they test them in animals to determine toxicity, dosing, and efficacy. What they learn in animal models helps them determine if it is safe and worthwhile to proceed to human trials, and how best to design those trials. The animals get injured and must live through pain and misery sometimes and are left to suffer and die” (Animal Testing – biology). Every product that is to be applied to human body is first applied on an animal to test whether it is harmful or not. Needless to say it is a very controversial topic (Singer). Some people support it when it is used for medicinal purposes, while opposing when it is done in, say, cosmetics industry. Animal rights activists oppose both vehemently (Personal-Care Products—An Easy Call on Animal Testing). A third group comprises people like Prof. Tipu Aziz in UK who support animal testing (Jha and Lewis, 1) in both medicine and cosmetics industries. Both dead and live animals are used for testing. When a living animal is used for testing, it is commonly, sometimes notoriously, referred to as “vivisection”. Though animal testing has been found to be invaluable in the development of medical science, it has always courted controversies. Initially it was due to the human concern over causing pain to animals in the name of medical testing. Later, when animal rights activists became a force to reckon with in the global society, opposition to animal testing gained momentum. But despite the efforts of animal rights activists, animal testing was on the rise in UK during 20th century. Statistics show that the number of animals reportedly used for animal testing in UK rose to 3.1 million in 1986 from several hundred in 1900 (Animal Testing). The three quotations provided below tell a story of their own (Animal Testing): "Science, industry and regulators are too ready to take the view that primate use is unavoidable. This view should be challenged. Replacing primates with humane alternatives should not be beyond the bounds of scientific endeavour in the 21st century." Dr Mark Prescott, RSPCA primatologist, 2003 "Many of us would not be able to lead healthy lives were it not for the pharmaceutical companies being able to test their drugs on animals." Jack Straw, then Home Secretary, BBC News, 2000 "The Animal Protection Act 1986 regulates scientific procedures which may cause pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm to 'protected animals'; it refers to these as 'regulated procedures'. 'Protected animals' are defined in the Act as all living vertebrate animals, except man, as well as one invertebrate species, the common octopus. The definition includes foetal, larval and embryonic forms which have reached specified stages of development." Home Office, 2003 Protests against animal testing are particularly loud when it is used for commercial purposes. Cosmetic industry is perhaps the one industry which suffered the most vehement criticism from animal rights activists. In cosmetics industry, there are 13 types of animal testing: tests for eye and skin irritancy, skin penetration, skin sensitization, phototoxicity and photosensitization, mutagenicity, acute and chronic toxicity, carcinogenicity, reproductive toxicity, teratogenicity and finished product safety evaluation (Cosmetic Testing—Background Information). Even non-activists found it hard to swallow the thought of causing cruelty to animals for the benefit of creating artificial beauty for humans. Because of the widespread protest in the media, many governments started imposing regulation on animal testing. In USA, the Animal Welfare Act of 1985, enforced by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), has clauses to ensure that most animals, with the exception of mice, rats and birds, used for testing get a certain standard of care and treatment. While in Europe, the European Union's Directive 86/609/EEC regulates animal testing experiments. In UK, the 1986 Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 27 imposed regulations on animal testing by three licenses: 1. for the scientist in charge of the project, 2. for the institution where testing is conducted and 3. for team-members of the project (Animal Testing – Wikipedia). At present animal testing is banned in several countries including UK, the Netherlands and Belgium (Animal Testing – Wikipedia). The European Union has finally decided, after 13 years of negotiation, to set in motion a procedure that would eliminate almost all forms of animal testing across Europe by 2009. As the protests against animal testing grew among the public and government laws regulating animal testing began to come into force, cosmetic companies were forced to take a stance on the issue and declare it. Some chose to abandon animal testing, while others chose to continue with animal testing by finding ways to circumvent government regulations by conducting animal testing in their subsidiary companies operating in the countries where there is no regulation for animal testing (Animal Testing – Wikipedia). As mentioned above, the issue of animal testing created a split in the cosmetics industry. The UK companies that decided to abandon all forms of animal testing from their manufacturing procedures include Avalon Natural Products, Kingfisher, Barry M Cosmetics, Liz Earle, Beauty Without Cruelty, Meadowsweet, Bio-D, Montagne Jeunesse, Daniel Field, Neal’s Yard Remedies, Faith In Nature, Urtekram, Green People , Weleda, Honesty Cosmetics, Woods of Windsor, Jason Natural Cosmetics, and Yaoh. In contrast, the following companies whose products are available in UK invited the wrath of animal rights activists by carrying on with some form of animal testing in their manufacturing procedure: Avon Cosmetics, Jeyes, Beiersdorf, Johnson & Johnson, Lancome, Chanel, Lever Fabergé, Christion Dior, L’Oreal/Nestlé, Clinique, Miners Cosmetics, Colgate Palmolive, PZ Cussons, Coty, Reckitt Benckiser, Revlon, Estée Lauder, SC Johnson, Virgin Vie, Garnier, Yardley, Givenchy, Yves Rocher, GlaxoSmithKline, Yves Saint Laurent, Helena Rubenstein, Unilever (Cruelty-Free Living). Critics of animal testing argue that the companies can use the existing data to manufacture cosmetics, in which case there is no need to do any further animal testing, or they can use a substance that is already known to be harmless to human body to manufacture a new brand of cosmetics. They point out that there is no legislative requirement from the governments to conduct animal testing first before making the cosmetics available for human use (Get the Facts). The aim of this study is to find out the effects of the controversy regarding animal testing in cosmetics industry among consumers in UK. The study also intends to find out how the cosmetics companies in UK reacted to the controversy and widespread protests. The study also deals with the influence of ethical consumerism on the government policies regarding animal testing in cosmetics industry. Literature review A study by Fliess et al. (48) reveals that the trend in cosmetics industry is increasingly leaning towards natural products, that is, cosmetics made from herbs available in the nature. The study also suggests that the companies who market such products conduct advertisement campaigns in the media to promote such products so as to create a good image for the company in corporate social responsibility. In another study, Auger et al. (26) analyze whether social and ethical values of the products have any effects on the consumer. The study found that most consumers consider only actual qualities of the products and do not consider non-product values like ethical manufacturing. Fotopoulos and Krystallis (730) conducted a survey in Greece regarding the purchasing motives of the environment-conscious consumer. The study found that the consumers in Greece can be broadly categorized into three types of customer profiles. Wheale and Hinton (302) conducted a study to find out the factors that motivate the decision-making process of an ethical consumer. The study found that the factors vary from products to products. According to the study, generally environmental issues have a greater influence than issues related to human rights or animal welfare on decision-making of an ethical consumer. Irving et al. (3) conducted a detailed study on ethical consumerism and the changes it brought about in the corporate behavior. In the study, the history of ethical consumerism, its present trends and its future potential are discussed. In another study, Memery et al. (399) investigate the influence of the consumers’ awareness of ethical and social responsibility issues on the purchasing decisions. Balls (23) explores the possibilities of replacement for animal testing in cosmetics in the backdrop of ethical issues and practical realities. He suggests that only chance of silencing the criticism against animal testing in cosmetic industry is to develop viable alternate scientific methods to test the safety of the cosmetic products. Salter (165) examines the ethics behind human testing in cosmetic industry. In what could be one of the first reports that deal with ethical consumerism, Stern (47) lists the limitations of government regulations or company policies in protecting the values of the customer. He suggests self-regulation as an effective tool for the success of ethical consumerism. In 2003, Shalev (19) reported the move by European Union to ban all kinds of animal testing in cosmetics industry. Schumann (213) provides an overview of the draft seventh amendment to the European Union cosmetics directive, Directive 76/768/EEC, and discusses its possible effects in the cosmetics industry in future. Pauwels et al. (7) in their study dealt with the issues in front of the scientists after the European Union regulation in animal testing in cosmetic industry. It was reported that cosmetics companies lost a significant amount of money because of customer boycott for animal testing in 2003: “UK companies lost £2.6 billion of sales in 2003 through consumer boycotts, revealed the Co-operative Bank last year. More than half (53 per cent) of British citizens also said that they avoided at least one company's products or services on principle” (Ethical Cosmetics). However, one year later a survey (Pitman, 1) found that “sales of cosmetics certified as not tested on animals dipped from £182 million (€270m) in 2003, to reach £172 million in 2004, according to the Ethical Consumption Report 2005, published last week by Co-operative Bank - a finance house that has built a reputation on ethical investment.” Heather Moore in her articles urges the readers to abstain from buying cosmetics and personal-care products that are tested on animals (Be a Caring Consumer: Choose Cruelty-Free Cosmetics and Household Products; Blinded by Beauty Products: Cosmetic Giants Continue to Test on Animals). Carrigan et al. (401) conducted individual interviews in their study to find out the role and potential of ethical consumerism among older consumers. The study found that the older consumers as a group exhibit better social obligation and therefore are likely to purchase what they perceive as ethical products. Some reports (Read the Label; Safe Skin Care) suggest that one cannot simply understand whether the product is tested on animal or not simply by looking at the label. The labels such as "Against Animal Testing" and "Not Tested on Animals" do not necessarily mean that the cosmetic is not tested on animals. Basic information and facts regarding animal testing by cosmetic companies can be found in the Internet (Cosmetics: Frequently Asked Questions; FAQs; Silly Rabit, Cosmetics Are for Humans! — All About Animal Testing). In USA, Food and Drugs Administration (FDA) has asked consumers to report any problem they find with cosmetics. A detailed report about different methods adopted by cosmetic companies for testing the products on animals can be found on www.prwatch.org (Cosmetic Solutions: The Makeup Industry Gives Itself a Health Hazard Makeover). Popular myths about animal testing in cosmetics are proven to be far from reality in a short history of animal testing in www.stopanimaltests.com (Consumer Product Companies). There are agencies like Humane Cosmetics Standard (HCS) and the Humane Household Products Standard (HHPS) that certify that company is not testing its products on animals and its products are “cruelty-free” (Retailers). There are many initiatives from animal rights activists to stop animal testing completely in cosmetics industry (Cosmetic Campaign; Animal Testing by Cosmetic Industry; Kiss Animal Tested Cosmetics Goodbye; How to Find Products Not Tested on Animals). It has been reported that new innovations and test methods were developed by scientists that would reduce the number of tests conducted on animals in cosmetics industry (Indu Kumari and Jamil; How Science Can Save Cute Animals from Corporate Killers). A cosmetics company that championed the cause of non-animal testing had been The Body Shop. Activists against animal testing used to cite it as a good example of ethical business. But in 2006, when L’Oreal, perhaps the biggest cosmetics company in the world and the prime target of animal rights activists, bought The Body Shop, many eyebrows were raised (Booth). A detailed report of this controversy is provided in www.cosmeticsbusiness.com (Ethical Products - Beauty Is More Than Skin Deep). Methodology The study has two objectives: 1. to find out the influence of animal testing on the purchasing decision and buying patterns of the consumers in the case of cosmetic products and 2. to find out the effects of ethical consumerism and legislation regarding animal testing on Cosmetic companies’ ethical polices on animal testing. To deal with the first objective, i.e., to find out the influence of animal testing on the purchasing decision and buying patterns of the consumers in the case of cosmetic products, a questionnaire survey method was adopted. Questionnaire is an organized collection of questions that are given to the sample population from which data is wanted: “Questionnaire refers to all those written preformulated set of questions to which the respondent is instructed to record his own answers usually within rather closely delineated alternatives” (Runkel and Mcgrath, 183). This method is usually used when the study concerns a large or widely dispersed group of people, but deals with only a fraction of the large population. It is a means of collecting data about present conditions. Survey research is a method of collecting and analyzing data obtained from a large number of respondents representing a specific population collected through highly structured and detailed questionnaire (Denain, 362). It provides the researcher with information on variables on which suitable values could be assigned. The following questionnaire was prepared for getting the consumer response regarding the influence of ethical consumerism in buying patterns of cosmetics. Hi friend Can you do me a favor? Please fill in the following questionnaire. This is for my dissertation work. All the information you provide will be kept confidential. Thank you. Age: Sex: Occupation Income: (For all the questions select only the appropriate one.) 1. Which of the following brands of cosmetics do you use? A. Avalon Natural Products. B. Honesty Cosmetics. C. Jason Natural Cosmetics. D. Woods of Windsor. E. Christion Dior. F. L’Oreal. G. Colgate Palmolive. H. Lever Fabergé. I. None of these (specify:………………) 2. Which of the following aspects most influence your purchasing decision of a particular cosmetic? A. Quality. B. Cost. C. Brand image. D. “not tested on animals” logo. 3. State how often does “not tested on animals” logo influence your purchasing decision of a particular cosmetic. A. Never. B. Rarely. C. Frequently. D. Always. 4. Do you feel animal testing on cosmetics is right? A. Yes. B. No. C. No opinion. Of the eight cosmetics given in the first question, first four, Avalon Natural Products, Honesty Cosmetics, Jason Natural Cosmetics, and Woods of Windsor, are considered to be non-animal testing cosmetics, while the next four, Christion Dior, L’Oreal, Colgate Palmolive, and Lever Fabergé, are considered to animal testing cosmetics (Cruelty-Free Living).The second question deals with the factor that influences a purchasing decision most. The third question tries to find out the influence of “not tested on animals” logo on purchasing decisions. From the data collected through this questionnaire, four tables, that of preferred cosmetics, factors influencing purchasing decision, influence of “not tested on animals” logo, and popularity of ethical consumerism, can be created. From these tables, consumer buying patterns and trends regarding cosmetics are found out. The second objective, i.e., to find out the effects of ethical consumerism on the policies of cosmetic companies regarding animal testing in cosmetics, a simple content analysis method is adopted. Content analysis can be defined as “a research tool used to determine the presence of certain words or concepts within texts or sets of texts” (An Introduction to Content Analysis). Several works that deal with ethical consumerism, animal testing in cosmetic industry and government policies regarding animal testing are provided on the “Review of Literature” section. An analysis of these works provides sufficient information about the effects of ethical consumerism on cosmetic companies and government regulations. Results (Needs to be added later) Discussion and Conclusions The study found that the purchasing decisions of the consumers in UK are indeed affected by the ethical image of cosmetic company. A good majority of consumers are aware of the “animal testing” factor of the cosmetics industry. Most of the consumers responded to this study consider animal testing as a negative aspect of the cosmetics industry. It has also been revealed that many cosmetic companies in UK were forced to develop a good ethical image through public relations spin and some companies do claim to have abandoned animal testing on their products. But the credibility of those claims has been questioned (Industry Claims about Cosmetic Testing; European Cosmetic Industry Takes Tentative Steps). Works Cited “An Introduction to Content Analysis.” . “Animal Testing by Cosmetic Industry.” . “Animal Testing.” http://www.politics.co.uk/issue-briefs/domestic-policy/animal-welfare/animal-testing/animal-testing-$366650.htm. “Animal Testing – biology.” . “Animal Testing – Wikipedia.” http http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_testing. Auger P, Devinney TM, Louviere JJ, and Burke P. “Do Social Product Feature Have Value to Customers?” . Balls M. “The replacement of animal testing: ethical issues and practical realities.” International Journal of Cosmetic Science 13(1), 1991: 23 - 8. Booth, Robert. “Activists call Body Shop boycott.” Guardian Unlimited. 17 March 2006. . Carrigan, Marylyn, Isabelle Szmigin, and Joanne Wright. “Shopping for a better world? An interpretive study of the potential for ethical consumption within the older market.” Journal of Consumer Marketing 21(6), 2004: 401 - 17. “Consumer Product Companies.” . “Cosmetic Campaign.” . “Cosmetic Solutions: The Makeup Industry Gives Itself a Health Hazard Makeover.” . “Cosmetics: Frequently Asked Questions.” . “Cosmetic Testing—Background Information.” . “Cruelty-Free Living.” . Denain, Norman K. The Research Act. McGraw Hill: New York, 1978: 362 - 363. “Ethical Consumerism.” . “Ethical Cosmetics.” . “Ethical Products - Beauty Is More Than Skin Deep.” . “European Cosmetic Industry Takes Tentative Steps.” . “FAQs.” . FDA. How to Report Problems With Products Regulated by FDA. . Fliess, Barbara, Hyung-Jong Lee, Olivia L. Dubreuil, and Osvaldo Agatiello. “CSR and trade. Informing Consumers about Social and Environmental Conditions of Globalised Production.” . Fotopoulos C and Krystallis A. “Purchasing motives and profile of the Greek organic consumer: a countrywide survey.” British Food Journal 104, 2002: 730 - 65. “Get the Facts.” . “How Science Can Save Cute Animals from Corporate Killers.” . “How to Find Products Not Tested on Animals.” . Indu Kumari, S and Kaiser Jamil. “Biotechnology: An answer to alternatives for animal model testings.” < http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/apr25/articles15.htm>. “Industry Claims about Cosmetic Testing.” . Irving S, Harrison R, and Rayner M. “Ethical consumerism. Democracy by wallet.” Journal of Research Consumers 3, 2002: 1 - 20. . Jha, Alok and Paul Lewis. “Scientist backs animal testing for cosmetics.” Guardian Unlimited. . “Kiss Animal Tested Cosmetics Goodbye.” . Memery, Juliet, Phil Megicks, and Jasmine Williams. “Ethical and social responsibility issues in grocery shopping: a preliminary typology.” Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal 8(4) 2005: 399 - 412. Moore, Heather. “Be a Caring Consumer: Choose Cruelty-Free Cosmetics and Household Products.” . Moore, Heather. “Blinded by Beauty Products: Cosmetic Giants Continue to Test on Animals.” . Pauwels, Marleen and Vera Rogiers. “Safety evaluation of cosmetics in the EU: Reality and challenges for the toxicologist.” Toxicology Letters 151 (1), 2004: 7 - 17. “Personal-Care Products—An Easy Call on Animal Testing.” http://www.grinningplanet.com/2004/10-12/cosmetics-animal-testing-article.htm. Pitman, Simon. “UK spending on ethical cosmetics 'falls'.” . “Read the Label.” . “Retailers.” . Runkel, Philip J. and Joseph Mcgrath. Research on Human Behaviour. Rinehart: London, 1972: 183. “Safe Skin Care.” . Salter DC. “Ethics of human testing.” International Journal of Cosmetic Science 12 (4), 1990: 165 - 73. Schumann R. “The seventh amendment to the cosmetics directive: what does DG enterprise want from ECVAM?” Altern Lab Anim 30(2), 2002: 213 - 4. Shalev M. “European Union considers banning animal testing for cosmetics.” Lab Anim (NY) 32(1), 2003: 19. “Silly Rabit, Cosmetics Are for Humans! — All About Animal Testing.” . Singer, Peter. “Henry Spira's search for common ground on animal testing.” Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 8, 1999: 9 - 22. Stern, Louis L. “Consumer protection via self-regulation.” Journal of Marketing 35(3), 1971: 47 - 53. “What is an 'Ethical Consumer'.” http://www.ethicalconsumer.org/aboutec/whybuyethically.htm. Wheale P and D Hinton. “Ethical consumers in search of markets.” Business Strategy and the Environment 16(4), 2005: 302 - 15. Read More