1) Is Anita Rod*censored* correct when she claims that it is possible to run a business in a very ethical and socially responsible manner and still “give shareholders a wondrous return on their investment”?
Answer: I think her statement is probably correct and I appreciate it too. However, I would noted that the natures of environmental concerns and considerations for the people in third world countries are somehow contrary to the stockholders’ satisfaction. If people have no more interest on how Body Shop concern humanity or if there are any news that dishonored Body Shop contributions (just like what happened in the case), it would be a crisis for its stock price.
2) Is the percentages of ingredients that come from Trade not Aid project an irrelevant statistic, as Gordon Rod*censored* claims?
Answer: I think it is not an irrelevant statistic for the public to evaluate Body Shop contributions. However, I would say that it is inadequate information that might mislead the public. I agree that we should also look at those courses that Body Shop had taken to solve difficulties to reach the goal to help people. But the general public would not realize them easier, that is why we need statistic. I would suggest Body Shop to issue quarterly report on the journey of help people in order to support the statisic.
Answer: I would say that, as a commercial company, Body Shop is being one of the most ethically responsible companies. It takes social responsibilities on its strategic decision. Although, the ingredients imported from poor communities and the donations to charity might not be much. But considered that they have the awareness, and the sincere climate of the organization, which 93% of its employees support its mission. The contributions were not able to compare to those welfare organizations, but it is much better than most of the other commercial company.