Can Green Companies Keep Their Soul When Sold?
by Bonnie Alter, London 
on 06. 8.06
In the past year several iconic green companies have been bought out by large multi-nationals, keen to take advantage of the booming ethical market. Body Shop, Green & Black Chocolates, Rachel’s Organic and Tom’s of Maine toothpaste spring to mind immediately. The question is whether these companies can keep their ethical principles after they are absorbed into corporations not built on the same set of values. There was an uproar when the Body Shop was sold to L’Oreal. The company claims that sales of its products have not been affected but others feel that its ethical reputation has been besmirched. Ethical Consumer magazine rates companies and their products on their ethical credentials. They have dropped Body Shop’s rating from 11 (out of 20) to 2.5 since the sell-out. Tom’s of Maine, recently taken over by Colgate-Palmolive, has fallen from 16 to just 5 because of Colgate-Palmolive’s poor reputation. Green & Black organic chocolates are especially dear to many Treehugger's hearts. Taken over by Cadbury’s, it is run as a separate operation and according to its market director “it was a bit of an anticlimax because absolutely nothing happened”. However Ethical Consumer magazine has reduced its score from 16 to 6.
Are the products less ethical when they are part of a multi-national? Ruth Rosselson, of Ethical Consumer says that depends on the consumer: “Many consumers simply don't know who owns their favourite brands, and others don't care: it really depends on what your reasons for buying ethical are". She believes there will be longer-term damage to brands swallowed by multinationals. “The real 'deep green' consumer does feel betrayed." Dr Tim Lang, Professor of Food Policy at City University, also urges caution. " Everything is dependent on how the relationship with the movement is retained by these companies. For the movement that gave birth to these values, eternal vigilance is required. :: Guardian
Follow @TreeHugger on Twitter & get our headlines with @TH_rss!
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
little adjustment: Body shops rating at ethical consumer is 3,5.
nevertheless i would like to see green consumers boykotting body shop now, cause there is really no reason to push l´oreals profits. luckily there are enough other companies on the market from whom we can buy organic-shampoo etc and their products are mostly cheaper. although the range of men-products is not that wide yet, sante, lavera and logona all offer a line of men-cosmetics from shower-gel to shaving foam. no need to push a multi-player.
This is something I've wondered since Ben & Jerry's was sold to Breyers (Unilever). Even if they do keep the new acquisition true to its original standards, does it matter when the rest of the company's holdings are still doing business as usual? It's kind of like Dole or Del Monte organic produce. Sure, they've converted a few fields to organic, but they're still using chemical fertilizers and pest/weed control for most of their products. I think that the large companies are doing this as a conscience sop, and a ploy to win over consumers. "Look, we've got this 'green' company or product, now! We can't be all bad, then, can we?"
Changing the point of view, in my opinion, the question that emerges is wheter these multinationals are moving towards more ethical behaviours. The Fairtrade mark for Nestlé's Partners Coffee Blend (October 2005) can be a useful example to understand. On the Baby Milk Action website it can be read: “According to Nestlé's press release, the coffee in its Partners' Blend is sourced from 200 farmers in El Salvador and an undisclosed number working in a coopertative in Ethiopia. Even if 3,000 farmers were involved, this is less than 0.1% of the farmers supplying Nestlé. So virtually 100% of Nestlé's coffee suppliers remain outside the Fairtrade!” (http://www.babymilkaction.org/resources/yqsanswered/yqanestle07.html).
Has Nestlé gotten more ethical since then?!
Sincerely, I don’t think so and agree with the Ethical Consumer magazine ratings cutting. I wonder how these green small companies will be able to remain faithful to their ethical principles being part of some of the biggest and more worldwide boycotted multinationals.
The eternal struggle for the ethical consumer - do we reward the huge conglomerates for their baby steps, or do we drop the brands once they're snapped up by conglomerates, and search for a new up-and-comer small business to support.
I still believe the latter choice is the smart one, because it supports truly green/sustainable business at the "grassroots" level. I want every dollar of my spending money to go to the most-green option.
That said, I am not so sure Ethical Consumer Magazine is doing the right thing by downgrading the ratings when the company gets absorbed by a conglomerate. Is that fair if the soaked-up smaller business has its own more sustainable process that DOES NOT change after the buyout?
If a dog has mud all over him except for a single paw, most people would still say "yuck, that's a dirty dog."
Yes, but if the dog started cleaning itself up, would you encourage it?
You can still recognize that it's mostly dirty yet be happy that it's taking steps to clean itself up (as long as those are real steps, of course).
I'm so glad to hear some opinions about this. I'm for the small companies for many reasons, but not everyone has the resources to choose.
I am glad big box retailers are beginning to offer environmentally healthier choices. The main advantage of big dirty corporations buying small cleaner ones is distribution (dirty by its own right). Exposure of these products to the “other half” is a step forward. I support baby steps -- better than none at all. A LOT of people don’t know anything about the things we treehuggers love, and that is a barrier. As eco-products become more familiar, that barrier erodes. Change happens slowly. We just have to stay on top of the game.
No one said this revolution would be easy.
I am very disgusted at tom's of maine for selling out to such a horrible that tests on animals...I will make sure I don't support them as well as as many friends and family. Natural stores should not carry these products if they claim no animals testing. It's sad what people will do for greed.
Just and FYI.. Nestle owns L'Oreal.. and I think that we should encorage and support every positve change made by every company.. like one the previous posts states.. change won't be easy. And it won't be fast.. but at least it's happening.
Hell no - Can you keep your soul once you have sold it to the devil? I dont think so. Once a green company is sold to a non green company , thats the end. it becomes all about profit and the intial ideology disappears. The First rule of business is to make a profit but if you believe in something you just dont hand it over to the non believers.
My biggest concern is this: where is my money going? The profits that Colgate earns from my tube of Tom's toothpaste, or that Clorox earns from my Burts Bees shampoo, are being poured directly into a congloporate with a reputation for ecologically unsound products and practices. Sure, maybe Green & Blacks are running themselves "separately", meaning they'll have control over whether or not Cadbury gets to put high-fructose corn syrup into their bars to support the farmers of the US, but they're still emptying their coffers into the same dirty bank accounts.