An Investigation into the Negative Impact of Using Animal Testing for Cosmetic Companies - Dissertation Example

?A. Provisional An Investigation into the Negative Impact of Using Animal Testing for Cosmetic Companies B. Brief Background to the Proposed Subject Cosmetic testing on animals is an important concern, and is one that falls under the larger rubric of corporate responsibility when it comes to how a customer perceives an organization that tests on animals. How a corporation acts towards the larger community, which includes animal rights, along with a host of other concerns, affects the corporation’s reputation and, thus, its bottom line. According to Paine, “customers are…more disposed to buy from companies they perceive as ethical and socially responsible” (Paine, 2003, p. 110). While this is more pronounced overseas, as France and Germany have been shown in a study to take corporate stewardship more seriously than do Americans, Americans still believe that corporate responsibility is important – “a recent survey of some 2500 Americans found that 36 percent claimed they seriously considered a company’s corporate citizenship when deciding whether to buy its products” (Paine, 2003, p. 110). Moreover, if a corporation does actions that are disapproved of – say, it is revealed that the corporation conducts unnecessary and cruel tests on animals – this hurts the bottom line, and can lead to boycotts, which are a PR nightmare and can lead to a serious dip in consumers buying its products (Paine, 2003, p. 110). The reason why I chose this topic is because animal testing, especially when the testing is not necessary for advancements for human health, as is the case with cosmetics testing, is one that inspires much passion on either side of the question, and is an important element of corporate social responsibility. For some people, any kind of animal testing should be verboten, even if the testing is done in the interest of finding human cures. For others, animal testing might not be a problem because, after all, they are “just animals.” For still others, certain kinds of animal testing might be acceptable, especially if the testing would lead to a medical cure, while other types of testing, such as testing regarding cosmetics, would not be acceptable. How each of these groups view this element of corporate social responsibility would be the center of the inquiry. C. Aims and Objectives The aims of this project will be to discover the feelings of people from all three of the above groups when it comes to certain companies that use animal testing. Do they buy from companies that use animal testing? If not, why not? If so, why? Perhaps a passionate animal advocate might buy products from a cosmetic company that animal tests – what might explain this incongruence? Moreover, I am interested in discovering if companies that do not test on animals emphasize this fact in the advertising campaigns. Lastly, I am interested in finding out how these campaigns affect consumers, and whether or not consumers are less likely to buy from companies that are known to test on animals, and more likely to buy from companies that tout the fact that they do not test on animals. D. Initial Literature Review One of the questions that is of interest is why some people care more about animal rights than do others. The reason why this is an important question is because it can answer why certain consumers will not buy products from cosmetic companies that use animal testing, while others do not care either way. Unti and Rowan (2001) theorize that childhood attitudes accounts for who has more compassion for animals than others (Unti & Rowan, 2001, p. 27). Other theories state that the concern from animals comes to a concern for the oppressed (Unti & Rowan, 2001, p. 27). As to the question of whether companies emphasize their corporate social responsibility, there is some indication that they do not (Blyth, 2003, p. 16). As for the question about how corporate irresponsible practices, such as animal testing, affect consumers, it is useful to examine how consumers react to other corporate social irresponsible practices, such as human rights abuse. A good case study for this would be Nike, who is an example of a company who was forced in socially responsible procurement by market forces. In the 1990s, Nike was infamous for their sourcing difficulties. The root of these difficulties were independent contractors who were operating in countries where low wages were the norm, as well as unsafe working conditions; abusive workplaces, which included both sexual harassment and physical abuse; and underage worker hiring (Paine, 2003, p. 121). This allowed Nike to keep its manufacturing costs to a minimum, and put more costs into marketing, which is where Nike really struck gold. This cheap labor was seen by many as a key to Nike’s rise to global prominence, as it allowed Nike to undercut its rivals production costs. Moreover, it was a business practice that did not shame Nike, as it was a practice that was always done, and had been going on for years, not just with Nike, but with other companies, such as IKEA and Shell Corporation (Paine, 2003, p. 121). Nike continued this attitude until its sales slid in 1998, and one of the factors in the sales decline was deemed to be consumer backlash due to its manufacturing practices. At this point, Nike began a campaign that introduced a six point program “aimed at improving its suppliers’ working conditions, increasing support for its Asian microenterprise loan program, and improving university research on responsible business practices” (Paine, 2003, p. 122). However, there is also some indication that consumers do not really care about corporate social responsibility, while other studies show the opposite, while still other studies show that effects of negative publicity can be mediated by other factors. The research of Swaen (2001) would indicate that consumers really do not care about corporate social responsibility, and that their main concern is the quality and price of the product. One of the reasons for this is because consumers believe that corporations lie, so it would be difficult to discern if the corporation is really socially responsible or is just lying about it (Swaen, 2001, p. 13). However, Auger et al. found that consumers are swayed by corporate social responsibility (Auger et al., 2001). Spencer (2003) found the same (Spencer, 2003, p. 299). Liu et al. (2009) found that some consumers are swayed either negatively or positively by a company’s corporate social responsibility or irresponsibility, but that these effects can be mediated by how committed the consumer is to the brand in general (Liu et al., 2009, p. 67). E. A Discussion of the Research Methodology and Research Methods Employed The qualitative design of this paper is based upon the four phases outlined by Cowan, in that the point of view of the research was considered, as was the philosophy, the methodology and the design. (Developing a Doctoral Research Methodology). The point of view encompasses what the researcher wants to know, what needs to be learned. The broad research method that will be used to explain how Saudi individuals react to English in advertising will be qualitative, as the method will be questionnaires, and this questionnaires is a qualitative method of gathering information. Qualitative research seeks to build a relationship with the participants of the studied phenomenon. (Langelett, 2003, p. 7). The ultimate goal of qualitative research is to provide depth to a given subject, as opposed to breadth. This is accomplished by acquiring in-depth and intimate information from a small group of participants. An equally important goal is to the how and the why about how people think, behave and make meaning, as opposed to simple observation about these same factors. (Ambert et al., 1995, p. 880). Qualitative research is used for interpretivists paradigms, and the underlying assumption governing qualitative research is that individuals experience social and physical realities in different ways, and qualitative researchers look to find a rich and complex description of how people think, react and feel under certain contextually specific situations. (Hossain, 2008, p. 3). The researcher accomplishes this by making friends with his or her subjects by spending time with them and gaining their trust. The questions in qualitative research are open-ended, and geared towards the focus of the inquiry, which is set by the researcher. The raw data that is collected from the qualitative study is then analysed for patterns. Once a pattern is discerned, more data is collected to flesh out these patterns, while reconfirming the earlier themes and topics. (Langelett, 2003, p. 8). One of the advantages of qualitative research is its function in discovering phenomena, which is in opposition to simply confirming an already existing phenomena. The qualitative researcher gathers new information that may reflect new behaviours and practices, new ways of structuring or organizing socially, and new ways of thinking. Thus, existing ideas may be modified, redirected or added to, and, in the process, new ideas are found. (Ambert et al., 1995, p. 880). It also provides investigative depth to a particular problem or phenomenon, by delving below the surface of current awareness to find matters and issues that only are revealed by careful scrutiny. (Shank & Villella, 2004, p. 48). Questionnaires will be the method of choice. The method questionnaires will be used because“survey research is an integral element of modern social science.” (Fuchs). In order for survey to be meaningful, there are certain criteria that must be met – first, reporting must be timely; second, the findings must be relevant; third the results and researcher must be credible; and the estimates must be precise and accurate. (Fuchs). The first two elements are considered to be “soft indicators that require qualitative assessments,” (Fuchs), but the third and fourth elements require hard statistical analysis. If the results of the survey show a deviation from the “population parameter” then the survey results will be called into question, and this would decrease the accuracy of the survey, as well as the credibility of the results. The precision is determined by the margin of error size. (Fuchs). The reason why this method is appropriate is because the study will try to ascertain how individuals feel about cosmetic companies that use animal testing. To this end, the questions will be structured around the topics that are discerned in the literature review. Therefore, the participants can be directed towards these topics to discover if they have the same feelings about animal testing as do the individuals in the literature review. Additionally, there will also be open-ended questions to ascertain if new phenomenon can be uncovered. So, the questionnaires will accomplish two different objectives – they will ascertain if the individuals in the United States feel the same way that individuals do in the literature review, as well as ascertain if there is new phenomenon that must be investigated. F. Problems or Opportunities that Could Arise The major disadvantage of qualitative research is that there is no clear set of parameters to evaluate all methods of qualitative research. Sources that provide prescriptive parameters are usually procedures for a particular sub-set of qualitative research, and these cannot be applied to the field as a whole. (Shank & Villella, 2004, p. 48). Because of the unstructured and creative nature of qualitative research, there has been a call to establish criteria and detailed questioning, which will enhance rigour to qualitative research. (Bailey et al. , 1999, p. 169). In order to be able to extrapolate the findings of the qualitative study, there must be an explicitness on the part of the researcher, a rationale must be offered, and respondent selection and analytical procedures must be fleshed out in detail, otherwise the study will not be considered to be rigorous enough to achieve credibility and certainty, and would not be able to be applied to particular worldviews. (Bailey et al., 1999, pp. 169-170). Another disadvantage to qualitative research is the subjectivity of the results. Qualitative research is seen as soft, and merely a series of personal impression and anecdotes, strongly subject to researcher bias. Qualitative research, due to its subjective nature, is also feared to lack reproducibility, in that the data cannot be duplicated due to the subjectivity of the responses and there is the chance that a different researcher, studying the same subjects, may come up with radically different results. Also, its subjectivity makes it difficult to generalise the results of the research to a larger population. (Mays & Pope, 1995, p. 109). As stated above, the validity of results is one weakness of qualitative research, and the inability to establish validity, which is necessary to be able to extrapolate the results to a broader segment of the population, is one trap that a qualitative researcher might fall into. There is the danger that the results will either be evaluated in a top-down deductive approach, in which the results of the data are simply wedged into a pre-existing theory or worldview, and simply used to legitimate this theory or worldview; or that the qualitative data will be used in a bottom-up approach, in which case it is only subjective accounts that cannot be tied into any working theory and does not move beyond discrete accounts. (Bailey et al., 1999, pp. 169-170). One way of ensuring rigour, therefore validity and reliabilty, is to design the research in a systematic and self-conscious way, and approach all data collection, communication and interpretation in the same manner. The method and data must be carefully accounted so that another researcher can analyse the data and come with the same conclusions. Moreover, the researcher must have a coherent and plausible explanation for the phenomenon that is being studied. (Mays & Pope, 1995, p. 110). The reliability of a subject must be protected, and one way of doing this is by keeping meticulous records of observations and interviews, and documenting this process in great detail. The researcher must determine the interpretative procedures before beginning the data collecting process. For instance, the researcher must decide how to code the utterances, and whether to use a computer to analyse the interview transcripts. Transcripts may also be analysed by multiple researchers, and the agreements on the transcripts between researchers may be compared. Also important is whether the process is audiotaped or videotaped, and these are important considerations as the process of audiotaping and videotaping enables subsequent researchers to duplicate the results. (Mays & Pope, 1995, p. 110). Some researchers suggest that a good measure of reliability would for the researcher to begin with a certain model or theory, then check the cases and data against this theory. (Ambert et. Al , 1995, p. 885). Some ways of ensuring validity would be to feed the findings back to the participants, to discover if the participants regard the findings as accurate and in line with their experiences. (Mays & Pope, 1995, p. 111). Triangulation or using multiple methods of data gathering and multiple informants are considered to be recursive checks against the validity of the researcher's interpretations. (Ambert et al., 1995, p. 885). Cross-checking, triangulation and depth of research are all important in strengthening validity. (Ambert et al., 1995, p. 885). Also important is, if there are cases that are examined that are deviant from the norm of that which is studied, is contradicted by other evidence or appears weak, the researcher must explain the variance in the data. (Mays & Pope, 1995, p. 111). G. Identification of the main tasks that will be carried out. 1. Conduct a literature review. Time scale: 6-8 weeks. 2. Ascertain the sample – who will be asked, how many will be asked, what are the criteria for who will be included, why these individuals are chosen, and what characteristics these individuals should share. Time scale: 2 weeks. 3. Discovering how to contact the people in my sample, and how to find individuals who fit the criteria of the sample. Time scale: 2 weeks. 4. Designing the questionnaire. Time scale: 4 weeks. 5. Contacting individuals to participate in the sample. Time scale: 8-10 weeks. 6. Conducting the questionnaires with the participants who are chosen for the study. Time scale: 3-4 months. Tasks Time Scale Literature Review 6-8 weeks Ascertaining the sample 2 weeks Discovering how to find individuals for my sample. 2 weeks. Designing the questionnaire 4 weeks. Contacting individuals to participate. 8-10 weeks. Conducting the questionnaires with the chosen participants. 3-4 months. References Ambert, A., Adler, P., Adler, P. & Detzner, D.F. 1995. Understanding and evaluating qualitative research. Journal of Marriage and Family, 57(4): 879-893. Auger, P., Devinney, T. & Louviere, J. 2001. “Consumer Assessment of Social Product Features: An Empirical Investigation Using Choice Experiments.” Available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=278211 Bailey, C., White, C. & Pain, R. 1999. Evaluating qualitative research: Dealing with the tension between ”science” and ”creativity.” Area, 31(2): 169-183. “Developing a Doctoral Research Methodology,” web accessed 20 January 2011, available at: http://www.theknightweb.com/research/ publications/2008JRNL_KnightCCM-DRAFT.pdf Fuchs, M. “Optimal Governance of Research Support by 'Survey Methodology,” web accessed 9 June 2010, available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/ papers.cfm?abstract_id=1452668 Hossain, D. 20008, “Qualitative Research Process,” pp. 1-15, web accessed 21 January 2011, available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1287238 Koslow, Scott, Prem Shamdasani, and Ellen Touchstone. “Exploring Language Effects in Ethnic Advertising: A Sociolinguistic Perspective.” The Journal of Consumer Research 20(4)(March 1994): 575-585. Langelett, G. 2003, “The Qualitative Tradition: A Complimentary Paradigm for Research in Economic Education,” web accessed 20 January 2011, available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=377000 Liu, T., Wang, C., & Wu, L. “Moderators of the Negativity Effect: Commitment, Identification, and Consumer Sensitivity to Corporate Social Performance.” Psychology and Marketing, vol. 21, no. 1, 54-70. Mays, N. & Pope, C. 1995. Rigour and qualitative research. BMJ: British Medical Journal, 311(6997): 109-112. Paine, Lynn. Value Shift. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 2003. Shank, G. & Villella, O. 2004. Building on new foundations: Core principles and new directions for qualitative research. The Journal of Educational Research, 98(1): 45-55. Spencer, T. 2003. “Talking about Social Responsibility: Liability for Misleading and Deceptive Statements in Corporate Codes of Conduct.” Monash University Law Review, vol. 29, no. 2. Swaen, V. 2001. “Consumers’ Perceptions, Evaluations and Reactions to CSR Activities.” Available at: http://my.ieseg.fr/bienvenue/DownloadDoc.asp? Fich=624896274_IESEG%20WP%202003-mar-7.pdf Unti, H. & Rowan, A. 2001. “A Social History of Postwar Animal Protection.” Available at: http://www.humanesociety.org/assets/ pdfs/hsp/MARK_State_of_Animals_Ch_01.pdf Read More