No Love For Cosmetics "Superbrands"

The UK's top 500 Superbrands* list is out - and there's not a single cosmetics or toiletries brand in the top 100, reports Cosmetics Design.

Luxury brands performed the best: Estée Lauder was the closest at 120, followed by Chanel (No. 142) and Clinique (No. 195). Next came toiletries: Gillette, Wilkinson Sword and Colgate, followed by big personal care players, including Dove at 294th and Nivea at 300th. Still, a poor showing from the industry! --What's up with that?

According to a Stephen Cheliotis, the chief executive at the Centre for Brand Analysis, it is because there is a "lack of heritage and emotional attachment" that consumers hold for brands in the category. Most consumers do not associate big cosmetics brands with their childhood (like Kellogg's) or believe that they represent any kind of value system.

*A superbrand is defined as brand that has established the finest reputation in its field, offering customers significant emotional and tangible advantages over other brands, which (consciously or sub-consciously) they want and recognize.

California Files Lawsuit Against Avalon, Whole Foods Brand

The Great State of California (i.e., the Attorney General) has filed a major lawsuit against body care household-cleaning product companies whose products recently tested highest for the carcinogenic contaminant 1,4-Dioxane, according to the Organic Consumers Association, a "watchdog" organization that released a report in March about the issue.

Their main target? Avalon Natural Products. However, it includes other companies that "have sold products (e.g., body washes, gels, liquid dish soaps) that tested close to or in excess of 20 parts per million for 1,4-Dioxane in the OCA study," which were:

• Whole Foods Market California (365 brand)
• Beaumont Products (Citrus Magic)
• Nutribiotic (See all products tested in the study.)
  

What does this mean for the consumer? Not much - not right now. The complaint is not that this chemical was in the products, but that they were not labeled as products that "may cause cancer."

The lesson here? California is definitely leading the movement towards correct labeling and regulation of personal care and home products...but in the meantime, know your ingredients and READ LABELS. Here's what to look out for (from the OCA press release):

To avoid 1,4-Dioxane, the OCA urges consumers to search ingredient lists for indications of ethoxylation including: "myreth," "oleth," "laureth," "ceteareth," any other "eth," "PEG," "polyethylene," "polyethylene glycol," "polyoxyethylene," or "oxynol," in ingredient names.

The Top 100 World's Most Ethical Companies

What do Aveda, S.C. Johnson and Son, and Whirlpool all have in common? They're all US consumer products companies that have been chosen as highly ethical. Note: Unilever (Netherlands) and Henkel AG (Germany) were also on the list.

Ethisphere released its June 2008 ranking of the world's 100 most ethical companies, and anyone who has ever poked a curious nose into the topic of business ethics should check it out. 

A few notes on the criteria:

1. Corporations that responded to a crisis with "real action" - as opposed to a PR campaign to cover up the mess - got extra points.
2. Products that clearly don't benefit the public's best interest pulled down a company's ranking.
3. Lawsuit particulars - even those that didn't hit the big media outlets - were taken into consideration.
4. Ultimately, companies that use "ethical leadership" and "purposeful method" were included in the list.

Tokyo-based global cosmetics company Kao (maker of Biore, Jergens, and John Frieda, among others) was the only one of its kind included in the list; executive vice president Shunichi Nakagawa chalks it up to their 120-year old code of ethics that governs all employees, even today. He cites 'integrity' to be their deepest value.

Two Sides to Every Story

Trade association Personal Care Products Council (PCPC) - formally the CTFA - is trying to fight back against recent health scares and accusations of the industry, saying that "good science should guide good decision making."

John Bailey, Ph.D, is the chief scientist at the PCPC, said that the claims of lead in lipstick were "simply not true." He said that the scare tactics used by organizations to show that "grave dangers lie on cosmetics shelves" mislead the public.

The internet - having changed the way we communicate - has increased the ability for lobby groups to disseminate information. This is great, but at the same time, you simply cannot take everything you read on the internet to be true. "Readers have to be critical," he noted, and seek out difference sources of information - not just lobby groups. (This goes true for everything, we think.) One such possibility is the website www.cosmeticsinfo.org. Why not? There are two sides to every story...

Making a Case for Sustainable Business Practices

A global study released this week from IBM (via LOHAS) shows that businesses believe corporate social responsibility (CSR) is definitely the way to go - it's just a question of how.

Though more than half (54%) believe that CSR initiatives help give their companies a competitive advantage, and 68% were focusing on generating revenue through CSR activities, there is still a major disconnect between what the customers want - or rather, demand - and what companies are prepared to give them.

In the age of Internet, everyone has access to information, and this creates a higher sensitivity to issues of climate change, product safety, labor practices, corporate financial accountability, and the importance of giving back to the local community.

Yet...

even businesses that feel they are knowledgeable and prepared to deal with CSR issues may not be. Nearly two-thirds of companies surveyed believe they have sufficient information about the sources behind their products and services to satisfy customer concerns, but half of those admit they don't understand their customers CSR expectations well.

So, what's it gonna be? Me or the profits, stakeholders often ask. The study (pdf) concludes that you shouldn't have to choose. In making a business case for social responsibility using the value curve, they hope to strengthen their overall business strategy and do what they came out to do: make some cash, and make a difference.