As for popular ethical concerns about the cosmetic industry, various economic sectors are just getting up with their regulations and interests. Like most difficulties with sustainability in the economy, most countries seek out a huge and effective capital economy before they recognize the importance of sustainability and eco-friendly methods later on during their manners of development.
This not only performs it hard to achieve new sustainable strategies but also indicates that the local business systems will always be somewhat more reserved in the eyes of its investors.
However, countries once considered producing are now picking up their ethical matters.
Continuous unethical manners in the cosmetic industry are apparent and questionable. Currently, the most generally arrived and important unethical practice would seemingly be the unethical animal testing studies on the pre-supplier, examination result of the business chain. Even though the current US FDA introduced regulations, not require the testing of products on animals before the commercial statement, many companies still prefer to test their products on rabbits and rats.
Although there are several other options to unethical animal testing, such as tissue of humans and advanced computer technology, companies, however, prefer these unethical practices out of satisfaction and lower budgets.
According to activist institution PETA there are many confident businesses in demand of ethical consumer support. PETA additionally holds a list of the various ethical hypothetical companies that make incorporate animal experiments within their product examination.
Harvard Business Review, however, records that despite the problematic ethics following animal experiments, there are countries, such as China, still want cosmetics to experiment on animals (Jones, 2012).
Brands such as 4Natura which is Brazilian, recognized for its emphasis on all-natural products and ethical methods, choose to not join the competitive Chinese market because of these unethical regulations.
Additional of these methods of animal cruelty in China, according to The Economist, quality, freshness, and security, for example, are still few in a country wherever tales abound of false baby milk and washed diapers sold as brand-new. Jones also says how Avons recent difficulties in China where claims of sop of local directors have dirtied its brand, hurt relations with sales representatives and given reasonable a takeover attempt by Coty. Avons ethical difficulties in the Chinese market are displayed in its drastically reduced RNOA rank, or profitability ranks, though their business ranks remain unchallenged.
Another issue than animal experiment discussions and doubtful developing markets, the cosmetic industry also suffers other ethical difficulties with the developing awareness of the general population. The Internet has more become both positive and negative for these developing cosmetic companies because of the various discussions on moral and immoral business practices. Also, the demand for the Internet has emerged in a request for a higher weight on customer reviews and experience (The Economist, 2009).
When we come up with unethical behaviors in business, we’re discussing almost all activities that do not acceptable in business operations, not doing the right in every situation.
In some certain situations, it could be some an individual in the business who act in an unethical way, we’re talking about organizational culture, where the whole business is immoral or corrupt from the top-down which causing damage as a result for society. What is important to consider that what is unethical may not at all times illegal. There are many cases where businesses work legally, but their actions harm society in another way and are generally known as unethical.
There many examples of these unethical behaviors but in this article, I will concentrate on Cosmetics Company that acts in unethical behaviors. We all know that it is unethical to testing in animals but it is legal in some countries such as in China it is from the main requirements to be accepted in join the Chinese market, while in New Zealand, Australia… etc is banned. Many countries stopped testing on the animal but that is not mean the proudest from outside is cruelty-free.
Many cosmetic brands were deemed unethical and were in a critical position because they want to entry into markets requiring testing on animals as a prerequisite, and that leads to a bad reputation issued to these brands. NARS Cosmetics is a famous brand were accused of being materialists and unethical because they wanted to enter the Chinese market. Causing unhappy customers and their products were boycotted.
In April 2017 there is a statistic / online survey demonstrate 1106 people respond to the chances of consumers in the US to stop buy from their favorite cosmetics/makeup brand if it were known that the brand tests their products on animals. Figure (1) shows that 32 percent would stop purchasing the products.
Cosmetics Company still kills animals for testing mascara, shampoo, and other products. (Humane Society International, 2019)
According to HSI, there is 500,000 yearly animal die in cosmetics testing. The number is huge and it knows as immoral, the good news is that there is awareness of this unethical and many countries began to prevent tests on animals as shown in the picture (1) below shows from the beginning of 2012 to 2019.
Claire and Justice also faced a scandal over the results of a laboratory test that found carcinogenic asbestos. FDA announced on the official Twitter account warning customers not use these products. The FDA has identified products that are eye shadows, pressed powders and contour.
Claire’s company defended itself via Melanie Perry she said the Food and Drug Administration made a mistake because they labeled the carcinogen differently from EPA standards. The company, Claire, tried to discuss the US Food and Drug Administration to solve the problem, but this negotiation did not change anything. Because of this claim, the company declared bankruptcy in March 2018, and its sales declined significantly in shopping centers (Majdi, 2019).
Another topic of unethical behavior is the fake claims and deceptive advertisements frequently related to the cosmetics industry. A new study examining three categories of maintains including scientific, performance, and individual showed that more declare are categorized as misleading rather than straightforward (Carlson, Fowler, & Reisenwitz, 2015). 82 Percent of advertising is an untruth. This reality would not surprise many consumers (Zoldan, 2019).
In Britain, one specific advertisement was banned because of L’Oreal’s unethical ad. Rachel Weisz was in the ad, she was promoting their Revitalift anti-aging skin cream. The cream is expected to reduce wrinkles in the face. Britain banned this ad because the L’Oreal was using photoshop (air-brushed) the actress’s face too much, presenting her face unrecognizable (Frasier, 2019). L’Oreal’s move was not unethical according to individualism Theory. Air-brushing is allowed for companies to do, so organizations air-brush to help raise their earnings. L’Oreal desired their profit to rise and they imagined that expanding their ad would help grow their profit. Seeming at the customer’s point of view with the Individualist aspect, they are lied to with the ad. Buyers assume that if they purchase the Revitalift their wrinkles will be gone just like Rachel Weisz’s. In actuality, their faces will not seem like that and the client will be unsatisfied. L’Oreal was unethical in this method because the band was not considering their customers when they chose to stay air-brushing Rachel Weisz to the amount that she was unrecognizable. The Utilitarian approach involves stakeholders. The stakeholders in this place are the company, Rachel Weisz and several importantly their customers. With L’Oreal’s choice and holding the image prevented, their company is a stake because they were not faithful to their customers by editing the image over. Rachel Weisz is a stakeholder because she will be recognized as the person whose ad was banned. Finally, the clients are stakeholders because they are purchasing a product that was falsely promoted. What L’Oreal should do to make their clients happy was to display the product more realistically than presenting a false ad.
Possibly if L’Oreal was more knowledgeable of ethics in the industry world then countries would not become to ban their ads and their earnings could rise even more. L’Oreal’s trade-mark is”Because you’re worth it” if their clients are actually “worth it” they should not at least recognize the truth? Buyers will speak out and support a company responsible for any kind of advertisement that remains viewed as insensitive, grotesque, or discriminatory. Many customers do not recognize that many companies outsource promotion companies to build these campaigns if they do not have in-house advertisements. It turns within a domino impact when a promotion company declines to handle ethics when building a campaign for a client. It will not only destroy the client’s reputation but theirs as well. One must be careful of ethics when producing ads that the people will view. It could be assumed that any advertisement created will hurt someone, but if you can reduce the number of those insulted, you might discover yourself with a strong and ethical advertisement campaign.