It Seems to Me

In Memoriam: Anita Roddick, Frizzy-Haired Lady Who Pioneered Social Responsibility in Business

Anita Roddick, fiery founder of the Body Shop cosmetic stores, died last September 11. She was only 64. No one who ever met Anita is likely to forget the passion, energy and dedication that she brought to building the Body Shop into an exemplar of corporate social responsibility. I remember her poking fun at big corporate titans with kindred soul Ben Cohen of Ben & Jerry’s. They were both more interested in the social missions of their companies than the business mission. They both loved poking fun at big corporate titans.

At her death the Body Shop had 2,000 branches in 53 countries, but it was no longer an independent company. Anita sold the Body Shop to the French cosmetics giant, L’Oreal, for $1.3 billion in 2006. Some immediately accused her of selling out. That’s about the last thing Anita Roddick would do. She became a consultant to L’Oreal and fashioned herself a “Trojan Horse” who would move the French company in the right direction.
Dame Anita Roddick (as of 2003) made a number of pithy observations about the business world. Most of the following are from her 1991 book, Body & Soul:

I have no doubt that wealth is corrosive. No matter how sensible I try to be, I think I am corroded by my own wealth.

I hate the beauty business. It is a monster industry selling unattainable dreams. It lies. It cheats. It exploits women. Its major product lines are packaging and garbage.

The trouble is that the business world is too conservative and fearful of change. All this talk about free enterprise, innovation, entrepreneurship, individuality — it’s nothing but hot air.

I believe that if companies are in business solely to make money, you can’t really trust whatever they do or say.

I am still looking for the modern-day equivalent of those Quakers who ran successful businesses, made money because they offered honest products and treated their people decently, worked hard, spent honestly, saved honestly, gave honest value for money, put back more than they took out and told no lies. This business creed, sadly, seems long forgotten.

Large corporations are trying, bless them. Are they trying hard enough? No, but none of us is because the financial institutions are like fascists and just want a return.

After some people criticized her for selling Body Shop to L’Oreal, Anita argued on her website that it would probably have been more valid to accuse her of selling out when she and her husband, Gordon Roddick, took the company public in 1984. Anita explained:

We then became ‘owned’ by people who were happy to downgrade our stock at the merest whiff of community trade, who believed that pioneering an end to animal testing in cosmetics was a threat to our share price….That was, I now realize, selling out. To people for whom a brave, idiosyncratic, maverick, fighting for human rights or social justice in business was a threat to everything they stood for.

Anita Roddick was, in effect, the anti-corporate business leader. She recognized that a lot of people saw the Body Shop “as a flaky organization led by a madwoman with frizzy hair.” She did go her own way. She hated meeting with security analysts. She once spoke at a meeting organized by the ad agency J. Walter Thompson – her theme was “Why I would never use an advertising agency.” When the Body Shop invaded the U.S. in 1988, the Wall Street Journal quoted a Harvard Business School professor who said the company would need, “at minimum,” a major launch advertising campaign. Anita’s response was: “I’ll never hire anybody from Harvard Business School.” And she didn’t. And the Body Shop never advertised.

Extend the Animal Care and Use Policy to Contract Laboratories – Eli Lilly

Resolved: That the Board issue a report to shareholders on the feasibility of amending the Company’s Animal Care and Use Policy to ensure that: i) it extends to all contract laboratories and is reviewed with such outside laboratories on a regular basis, and ii) it addresses animals’ social and behavioral needs. Further, the shareholders request that the report include information on the extent to which in-house and contract laboratories are adhering to the Policy, including the implementation of enrichment measures.

Shareholder Supporting Statement

Our Company conducts tests on animals as part of its product research and development, as well as retaining independent laboratories to conduct such tests. Abuses in independent laboratories are not uncommon and have recently been exposed by the media. Eli Lilly has posted on its Web site an Animal Care and Use Policy. The Company, as an industry leader, is commended for its stated commitment to an “ethical and scientific obligation to ensure the appropriate treatment of animals used in research …”

However, the disclosure of atrocities recorded at Covance, Inc., an independent laboratory headquartered in Princeton, New Jersey, has made the need for a formalized, publicly available animal welfare policy that extends to all outside contractors all the more relevant, indeed urgent. Filmed footage showed primates being subjected to such gross physical abuses and psychological torments that Covance sued to enjoin People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals in Europe from publicizing it. The Honorable Judge Peter Langan in the United Kingdom refused to stop PETA from publicizing the film and instead ruled in PETA’s favor. The Judge stated in his opinion that two aspects of the video, namely the “rough manner in which the animals are handled and the bleakness of the surroundings in which they are kept … even to a viewer with no particular interest in animal welfare, at least cry out for explanation.”

Shareholders cannot monitor what goes on behind the closed doors of the animal testing laboratories, so the Company must. Accordingly, we urge the Board to commit to promoting basic animal welfare measures as an integral part of our Company’s corporate stewardship.

We urge shareholders to support this Resolution.

Endnotes
1. http://www.lilly.com/about/policies/#animal
2. PETA’s undercover investigator videotaped the systematic abuse of animals at Covance’s laboratory in Vienna, VA over a six month investigation.
3. In October 2005, Covance’s Director of Early Development stated that “We’ve worked with just about every major company around the world” (http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/eastvalleyopinions/articles/1021cr-edit21.html)
4. The case captioned Covance Laboratories Limited v. PETA Europe Limited was filed in the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, Leeds District Registry, Claim No. 5C-00295. In addition to ruling in PETA’s favor, the Court ordered Covance to pay PETA £50,000 in costs and fees.

Ask McDonald’s to Adopt Global Farm Animal Welfare Standards

Please send this letter to McDonald’s Chairman and CEO Jack Greenberg.

Dear Mr. Greenberg:

I am writing to urge that McDonald’s adopt and implement globally the farm animal welfare standards that it requires of its suppliers.

<Please include a personal paragraph describing yourself and why you are concerned about this issue.>

In America and Great Britain, McDonald’s is a corporate leader in setting standards for its suppliers regarding the humane treatment of farm animals.

However, by failing to adopt and implement animal welfare standards globally, McDonald’s continues to buy from suppliers engaged in egregious cruelty towards animals. Approximately one-half of McDonald’s restaurants are located outside America and Great Britain.

McDonald’s risks harm to its good reputation and image if it continues to buy from suppliers engaged in abuse of animals. Consequently, I urge McDonald’s to protect and enhance its business by ensuring that its suppliers worldwide meet the highest standards for farm animal welfare.

Please write back and tell me what action McDonald’s will take to adopt and implement globally its farm animal welfare standards .

Sincerely,

Your Name

Your Address

Animal Rights

The well-being and fate of billions of animals are controlled by industry. Every year, Americans consume approximately nine billion animals, most of which are treated like inanimate objects as they are raised, transported and slaughtered. Millions are used for pharmaceutical and cosmetic product testing, some of which is not required by law. The use of fur in clothes has long been the target of animal rights campaigners. Circuses, rodeos and marine parks that hold animals in captivity for entertainment purposes face the constant criticism that their use of animals is inherently cruel.

How We Screen on Animal Rights

Trillium Asset Management Corporation (“Trillium”) seeks to avoid investing in companies that are involved in cruel and unnecessary abuse of animals. We monitor corporate practices and policies related to farmed animals’ living conditions, humane slaughterhouse practices, animal testing, the sale of fur, and the sponsorship or use of animals in entertainment noted for their cruelty to animals (such as bullfights or rodeos).

We seek out companies that promote alternatives to animal abuse, such as food processing companies and restaurants that market vegetarian products, and meat and dairy companies that avoid growth hormones and antibiotics. With respect to animal testing, we look for companies that: 1) promote the ethical use of animals in-house and with their subcontractors, 2) actively look to implement all available non-animal test methods that are accepted by regulators, and, 3) engage with regulators, provide expertise or financial support to organizations that are researching alternative testing methods.

Trillium works with its clients to screen portfolios in some or all of these areas, based on the client’s preferences. Alternatively, we can apply a “best of sector ” approach that screens out only those companies that lag behind their competitors in the implementation of best practices.

What We’re Doing

In 1993, became the first social investment firm to file a shareholder resolution on the issue of farm animal welfare. Working with Animal Rights International, we helped persuade McDonald ‘s to adopt for the first time a policy regarding the humane treatment of farm animals.

Subsequently, we have worked with People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), to push McDonald’s to apply these standards globally.

In 2006, responding to documented evidence of animal abuse at pharmaceutical companies’ animal research subcontractors, we participated in a campaign urging drug companies to extend their animal welfare policies to all subcontracted laboratories. We filed a resolution urging Eli Lilly to take steps to improve its animal welfare standards and extend its policies to all subcontracted animal research facilities. In the same year, we successfully lobbied Amgen to post its animal welfare standards on its website.

Social Issues

At any given time, the social research and advocacy staff of Trillium Asset Management Corporation are actively working on numerous social and environmental issues of concern to our clients. (Please visit our Engagement page to read more about the means we use to influence corporations.)

The categories below link to more specific descriptions of our work on various issues. The information is provided in the form of Adobe Acrobat (PDF) files.

Animal Rights
Environmental Advocacy
Equal Employment Opportunity
Human Rights
Indigenous Rights
Media Responsibility
Sexual Orientation

You can view additional information about each issue by clicking on the Social Issues links in the sidebar on the left.

Issue Report on Efforts to Implement More Humane Slaughter Method – McDonald’s

WHEREAS, on its Web site, McDonald’s states that “treating animals with care and respect is an integral part of an overall quality assurance program that makes good business sense” and that “animals should be free from cruelty, abuse and neglect”; and

WHEREAS, McDonald’s has already made commendable steps toward improving animal welfare; and

WHEREAS, despite its commitment to animal welfare, McDonald’s continues to purchase chickens from suppliers that use the outdated method of electrical stunning, in which the birds’ legs are snapped into metal shackles and the birds are shocked with an electric current, have their throats slit, and are dropped into tanks of scalding-hot water so that they are often still conscious when they suffer this hideous cruelty; and

WHEREAS, acknowledging the cruelty of electrical stunning and the need for humane slaughter methods in order to retain a competitive advantage, our company commissioned an Animal Welfare Feasibility Study of Controlled Atmosphere Stunning for Broilers (“the report”) that addresses the feasibility of phasing in a method of slaughter called “controlled-atmosphere killing” (CAK), which replaces the oxygen that birds are breathing with inert gasses, gently and effectively putting them to sleep; and

WHEREAS, the report concurred that CAK is, as animal welfare experts have described it, the most humane method of poultry slaughter ever developed and admitted that CAK “has advantages [over electrical stunning] from both an animal welfare and meat quality perspective … obviates potential distress and injury … can expeditiously and effectively stun and kill broilers with relatively low rates of aversion or other distress” and would eliminate the pain of premature shocks and inadequate stunning that are associated with electrical stunning; and

WHEREAS, the report further concludes that McDonald’s European suppliers that use CAK have experienced improvements in bird handling, stunning efficiency, working conditions, and meat yield and quality;[1] and

WHEREAS, although CAK is optimal for both the birds and for profit, McDonald’s has yet to implement it and has asserted a need for further research despite the fact that CAK has been widely and successfully used in Europe for nearly a decade and that there is no competing scientific claim suggesting that CAK is not optimal for animal welfare; and

WHEREAS, in its report, McDonald’s represents that it will “accelerate further developmental work” on CAK but provides no timeline or plan of action; and

WHEREAS, considering that McDonald’s commits on its Web site to “lead our industry [by] working with our suppliers and industry experts to advance animal welfare practices and technology,” if McDonald’s aspires to be the industry leader, then it must truly “accelerate” the development of CAK as promised and not merely delay it under the guise of needing further study;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that shareholders request that the Board of Directors issue interim reports to shareholders following the second, third, and fourth quarters of 2006 that detail the progress made toward accelerating development of CAK.

Report on Animal Welfare Standards – McDonalds

RESOLVED:

Shareholders request that the Board of Directors issue a report to shareholders by October 2003, prepared at reasonable cost and omitting proprietary information, reviewing McDonald’s animal welfare standards with the view to adopting and enforcing consistent animal welfare standards internationally.

SUPPORTING STATEMENT:

Our company’s farmed animal welfare practices in the U.S. and U.K. make McDonald’s a corporate leader in those countries.

• In its “Animal Welfare Guiding Principles,” our company states, “McDonald’s commitment to animal welfare is global … McDonald’s sets annual performance objectives to measure our improvement and will ensure our purchasing strategy is aligned with our commitment to animal welfare … McDonald’s will communicate our process, programs, plans and progress surrounding animal welfare.”
• McDonald’s stated in last year’s proxy: “The Guiding Principles express our commitment to the raising, transportation and slaughter of animals in a manner that is free of cruelty, abuse and neglect. The Guiding Principles are applicable to all suppliers (i.e., all suppliers from which the Company purchases product) on a worldwide basis … the Company, together with its outside experts, works with its suppliers to develop systems to monitor and assess the effectiveness of the suppliers’ animal handling practices. … We operate in 121 countries, and it is a tremendous task to monitor every supplier in every country immediately. We are making progress … we already report to shareholders about our animal welfare program on our website at www.mcdonalds.com.”
• Our company states that “different markets may develop additional standards and compliance systems [for animal welfare] appropriate to the legal framework, supply chains, and culture of the area.”

However:

• Despite exemplary practices in the U.S. and U.K., more than one-half of our company’s 29,000 restaurants operate elsewhere. Some standards implemented in the U.K. apply exclusively in that country (e.g., battery cage and gestation crate bans). McDonalds.com’s “Animal Welfare Progress Highlights (1999-2002)” discusses many policies that apply only in the U.S., without mentioning that they are only in the U.S.
• Our chief competitors, Burger King and Wendy’s, have adopted standards similar to our U.S. standards and apply them internationally.
• Our company has not made known any global program. McDonalds.com makes no reference to improved conditions in the raising of any animals (other than laying hens), transportation of any animals, use of experts, any programs or evaluation methods, “performance objectives,” or any “process, programs, plans, or progress” outside the U.S.

McDonald’s Community Affairs Director Bob Langert has stated, “No longer are extremists driving the debate. Mainstream consumers are the primary force.” We believe that our company risks harm to its reputation and image if it buys from suppliers engaged in animal abuse while it continues to assert its adherence to a program that it has not implemented. We urge our company to continue to protect and enhance its good reputation and business by ensuring that its public statements are accurate and that its suppliers worldwide meet the highest standards for the humane treatment of farmed animals by adopting the proposed resolution.

Implement Globally Farm Animal Welfare Standards – McDonalds

RESOLVED:

Shareholders request that the Board of Directors issue a report to shareholders by October 2002, prepared at reasonable cost and omitting proprietary information, reviewing McDonald’s animal welfare standards with the view to adopting and enforcing consistent animal welfare standards internationally.

SUPPORTING STATEMENT:

Our company’s public policy and practices towards the welfare of farm animals, as currently implemented in the United States and United Kingdom, make McDonald’s a corporate leader in those countries.

• In the U.S., our company has prohibited some abuses and details these improvements on our company’s Web site, which includes this statement: “McDonald’s believes that the humane treatment of animals is an integral part of our world class supplier system. Therefore, we buy all our beef, pork and poultry products from suppliers who maintain the highest standards and share McDonald’s commitment to animal welfare.”

• In the UK, McDonald’s has gone further, prohibiting battery cages for hens and gestation crates for pigs. McDonald’s stamps the RSPCA’s “Freedom Food” logo on its products that contain eggs, and in an October 2001 advertisement, our company declares that it “Has established a comprehensive set of animal welfare standards for suppliers… Has independent food safety auditing systems for all beef, pork, and chicken abattoirs…”

By failing to adopt animal welfare guidelines internationally, however, McDonald’s continues to buy from suppliers engaged in egregious cruelty towards animals in contravention of our company’s stated policies.

• Approximately one-half of our company’s 29,000 restaurants are not in the U.S., U.K., or Australia. Some standards implemented in the UK apply exclusively in that country, where fewer than one-twentieth of McDonald’s restaurants operate.

• Outside the U.S., U.K., and Australia, there is no evidence that McDonald’s has implemented animal welfare standards, despite practices that our company has prohibited elsewhere.

• As one example, our company has been provided with video documentation of a purported McDonald’s supplier in Central America stabbing cows in the back of the neck in an egregiously abusive manner of slaughter. McDonald’s has more than 1,500 restaurants in Latin America, where farm animal welfare standards are virtually non-existent.

Our company risks harm to its good reputation and image if it continues to buy from suppliers engaged in such abuse of animals.

• Our chief competitors, Burger King and Wendy’s, have adopted standards similar to our U.S. standards, and apply these standards internationally.
• Bob Langert, McDonald’s Senior Director for Community Affairs has stated that: “No longer are extremists driving the debate. Mainstream consumers are the primary force.”
• Newspapers and television stations around the world have reported extensively on animal welfare campaigns and our company’s animal welfare standards.
• Animal rights activists have not targeted our company in any concerted way since McDonald’s adopted guidelines and enforced them more than one year ago.

Consequently, we urge our company to continue to protect and enhance its good reputation and business by ensuring that its suppliers worldwide meet the highest standards for the humane treatment of farm animals.