# data[].attributes.headline
"To become the world's most ethical and sustainable business"

# data[].attributes.subject
"To become the world's most ethical and sustainable business"

# data[].attributes.body
Political:

Previously owned by L’Oréal (France), now sold to Natura Cosméticos (Brazil): new border and international regulations

Economic:

Economic conditions affect purchasing power

# data[].attributes.body
Social:

·      A petition that gathered 8 billion signatures: People demand actions NOW.

·      No animal testing = patch testing on volunteers. Trust issues

·      Since animal testing is banned everywhere within the EU – is there a point of emphasizing the cruelty free side of the brand?

·      More people aware – greater social responsibility (pressure groups)

·      Customer behaviour: loyalty

# data[].attributes.body
Technological:

·      E-commerce: higher customer security and protection.

·      Technology: cruelty free = no animal testing. Better usage of existing data needed.

Legal:

·      Cannot be sold in China: animal testing required. However: sold in some airports – is it legal? Second tests by Chinese authorities.

·      Since 2013, it has been illegal to sell make-up and toiletries in the EU which have been tested on animals anywhere in the world

·      Tax policies

Environmental:

·      Essential oils delivered from Brazil – deforestation.

·      Environmental aims set by the body shop: lots of goals remain unachieved, although the programme should be completed by 2020. This is due to natural causes

·      The Body Shop International is committed to the principles of the Round Table for Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO). Today 100% of The Body Shop purchases are made according to the RSPO standard.

# data[].attributes.body
Mission statement: No animal testing/ save the world/no exploitation

Vision statement:“Enrich, not exploit: enrich our people, our planet, our products".

Company image: ethical, cruelty-free, advocates of the good change

Marketing resources: online and in-store

Unique features: advocates of cruelty free products since the very beginning. The first ones to obtain the Leaping Bunny logo as well.

Competitive advantage: heritage, branding within/outside the organisation.

Exclusive products (e.g. shade drops). Both makeup/skincare products.

Are they conscious of their own resources: they do seem to have a strong CSR, as they keep advocating for fair trade ingredients as well as implementing their unique 2020 environmental programme.

VRIO attributes:

Valuable – yes, therefore, it gives some sort of competitive advantage

Rare –  no, therefore, we have competitive parity here

Difficult to imitate? – No, e.g. Lush, so we have temporary advantage here.

Organized – are they ready to capture the opportunity? No, according to the previous owner, the Body Shop’s demise is inevitable and soon… On the other hand, apart from the financial side, the Body Shop does seem to have a strong corporate culture which night be considered as a booster in obtaining competitive advantage. HR, organization itself = valuable, rare, difficult to imitate = sustainable competitive advantage

# data[].attributes.body
Segmentation (what? Who? Why?)

Lifestyle, personality, social class

Mostly women

Healthier Lifestyle

Vegan/vegetarians/cruelty free advocates

Social class – upper

Environmentally aware customers

Targeting

Personalisation e.g. personalised body lotion stands

Different countries = different approaches: e.g. in Malaysia the Body shop sells alcohol free products due to religious reasons

Cosmopolitan customers

Positioning

Natural care

Health/environment conscious customers

2008: fresh global positioning

Distinct products and fragrance

# data[].attributes.body
Lush Ltd is a private limited company based in the United Kingdom. It was founded in the year 1995 by its co-founders Liz Weir and Mark Constantine, a beauty therapist and a trichologist respectively.

A significant slowdown while owned by L’Oréal = lush obtained a significant market share

1)    Lush: compete in both industry and market: similar products, identical customers. However, Lush seems to obtain a different segment of the market: predominantly youngsters, whereas the Body Shop targets both young and older ones

2)     Fresh and handmade products, cruelty- free. Bigger space. Staff = experience

3)    Fresh products = better logistic/ sales required. E.g. Lush was closed in KZ due to low purchasing power: products got expired before they could be sold

4)    Mostly talk about the community/stuff as their main advantage – how reasonable is that?

5)    DO WE ATTACK OR DO WE AVOID LUSH?

Same goals? – Yes, cruelty free cosmetics, educated customers, the good change

Future emphasis – prob community and ethics, but that gives a temporary competitive advantage as many companies are now aware of this cruelty free thing. Even Dove.

Risk takers – no, since they can lose the market share they obtained. Keep customers – get a new one sort of dilemma.

What they do/ can do? Improve their range of products. Deliver the message to people.

# data[].attributes.body
1976 Anita Roddick opened the first Body Shop in Brighton.

1989 The brand launched in the US.

2006 French cosmetics company L'Oréal acquired The Body Shop in a deal worth £652m.

2007 Founder Roddick died.

2014 "Enrich not exploit" programme

2017 Sold to Natura cosmeticos