L'Oreal Convicted of Racism? Any Else Heard About this.

mscocoface

Well-Known Member
http://www.guardian.co.uk/france/story/0,,2120789,00.html#article_continue


You're worth it - if white. L'Oréal guilty of racism



[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]· Cosmetic giant fined for recruitment campaign
· First big French firm to be convicted of racial bias
[/FONT]

[FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif] Angelique Chrisafis in Paris
Saturday July 7, 2007
The Guardian


[/FONT] Part of the cosmetics giant L'Oréal was yesterday found guilty of racial discrimination after it sought to exclude non-white women from promoting its shampoo.

In a landmark case, the Garnier division of the beauty empire, along with a recruitment agency it employed, were fined €30,000 (£20,300) each after they recruited women on the basis of race. The historic ruling - the first time a major company has been found guilty of systematic race discrimination in France - saw a senior figure at the agency given a three-month suspended prison sentence.


The French campaign group SOS Racisme brought the case against L'Oréal, the world's largest cosmetics firm, over the campaign in 2000. Garnier France sought saleswomen to demonstrate the shampoo line Fructis Style in supermarkets outside Paris. They sought young women to hand out samples and discuss hairstyling with shoppers.

In July 2000, a fax detailing the profile of hostesses sought by L'Oréal stipulated women should be 18 to 22, size 38-42 (UK size 10-14) and "BBR", the initials for bleu, blanc, rouge, the colours of the French flag. Prosecutors argued that BBR, a shorthand used by the far right, was also a well-known code among employers to mean "white" French people and not those of north African, African and Asian backgrounds.


Christine Cassan, a former employee at Districom, a communications firm acting for Garnier, told the court her clients demanded white hostesses. She said that when she had gone ahead and presented candidates "of colour" a superior in her own company had said she had "had enough of Christine and her Arabs".


One woman working in the recruitment firm involved said foreign-sounding names or photos showing a candidate was of Moroccan, Algerian, Tunisian or other African origin would ensure candidates were eliminated. Another said: "I once had a good woman candidate but she was non-white. I had to ask someone to pretend that our list was full. It was hard."


One experienced candidate said she realised she was not eligible because she was of mixed race. In a normal sample of women recruited for similar sales work, around 40% would be non-white. For the Fructis project, less than 4% were of "non-European" origin.


SOS Racisme said hundreds of jobs had been subject to discrimination in the case. Garnier and the recruitment company were initially acquitted last year, but the appeal court yesterday overturned the ruling. A former Garnier head and a senior recruitment agency executive were acquitted.
Anti-racism campaigners in France hailed the ruling. Racial discrimination in employment is a huge problem in France with a recent survey finding three out of four firms preferred white workers.


President Nicolas Sarkozy's new justice minister, Rachida Dati, the first woman of north African origin to hold a ministerial post, has ruled that special departments in prosecutors' offices should be set up to deal with race discrimination.


Samuel Thomas of SOS Racisme told the Guardian: "This ruling is an enormous victory for everyone currently suffering race discrimination in France. It shows that economic interests cannot be put before the law and morality. Companies here clearly thought that racism was in their financial interest."


He said consumers of L'Oréal products in the UK and the US would be horrified to learn about the racial discrimination.


L'Oréal owns brands ranging from Lancôme to the Body Shop, which it bought last year. It said yesterday it would immediately appeal against the decision, which it found "incomprehensible".


"We believe that diversity and difference are a source of richness and we do not tolerate any form of racism or discrimination," the statement said.
The company was hoping for an altogether different type of publicity in France this weekend when it created a special lipstick for the Paris wedding of Desperate Housewives' star Eva Longoria to the French basketball player Tony Parker.


Century of beauty
L'Oréal was founded in 1907 by a French chemist who invented one of the first synthetic hair dyes.


It is the world's biggest beauty products company and owns brands from Maybelline to Helena Rubinstein and the Body Shop. In the 90s L'Oréal was hit by claims over past links to fascism, anti-semitism and the giving of jobs to Nazi collaborators after the second world war. It went some way to satisfy its critics with a boardroom change and other measures. Liliane Bettencourt, L'Oréal's major shareholder, is the wealthiest woman in France. Two years ago L'Oréal's slogan was softened from "Because I'm worth it" to "Because you're worth it" after concerns in France that the original appeared too money-oriented.
 

ChoKitty

Active Member
I remember replying to one of their surveys about being less inclined to buy their products because they don't show comercials with women who arn't white. (At least that I've seen in my State.) I remember ONCE, I saw a comercial with a black woman in it, as the actual lead. Only once. It hasn't aired again, and trust me, I look. Now, that girl is in the background..and blurred..in one commercial. I think they do it here in the US too. Last time I checked, they're wern't any on their site either.
 

Kalani

Well-Known Member
You've got to be kidding me!

Wait, isn't Beyonce one of their spokespeople? Or is it just the Garnier division that's doing this?
 

aloof one

New Member
Ironic considering how many of us swear by that Garnier Fructis crap.

I don't consider it crap, it works great on my hair.
This changes nothing. France is well known for its racial discrimination problems.
And just because some racist jerks don't want us selling it doesn't mean the stuff doesn't work.

I'll still wear it, in fact I'm using it right now, and I have some L'Oreal make up I need to restock in. Im even more eager to buy it now that I know those b*stards are being punished! :drunk:

[Kinda OT but not really:] Just like how the plastic surgery industry is usually marketed toward white women even though there are procedures that work very well on people of color (even though we age a lot more gracefully :rolleyes:...anyway). Theyre just stupid for not marketing to us or trying to avoid hiring us because in reality they are LOSING money. Could you imagine how much money Garnier Fructis would make if they actually created a line for "women of colour?" Not that I think the ingredients in stuff like Pantene Relaxed & Natural, etc. for black people are so great, but if Garnier made something even better and specially formuated for my hair... :lick: I would be running people over to get to it!...
 

DeepBluSea

Well-Known Member
Here are some of L'oreal's products:

Giorgio Armani Frangrances
Ralph Lauren Frangrances
Lancome
L'oreal
Garnier
Maybelline
Soft Sheen Carsen
Keratase
Matrix
Redken
Mizani
Dermablend

Do you really think people are going to boycott these products until L'Oreal makes some changes? :ohwell: I highly doubt it. This is kind of easy for me to say because I don't use any of the products. Still, I hope that I would be able to give up these products until they correct their practices. Why spend money where you are not appreciated? And you know how much black folks spend on hair care products.
 

aloof one

New Member
I just think its silly to boycott garnier because of something that happened in France. There are a lot of garnier fructis models that are black, and some of their Fructis Style products are mainly only modeled by black people (have you seen their spiking gel used for twists???) and Mizani is marketed toward black people and its models are black. why throw out a good thing because of this incident? Seriously, I want to know why, because if Im wrong I would love to be told why and what I can do about it. I just dont think tossing out my arsenal of hair products will help. Not to mention no one is going to notice but the person throwing all that hairstuff away, I promise.
 

DeepBluSea

Well-Known Member
I think all the reasons you gave are why I would boycott. So many black people are loyal to their products, they should strive to treat black folks with respect all over the world. We spend a lot of money on their products. I think if people boycotted "en masse" then it would have a bigger effect. But I personally would feel a twinge of guilt whenever I picked up the product if I knew the company was unfair to people who looked like me. So, even if it was a one woman boycott sometimes you have to do what you have to do.

The fine is a good start. I would like to know they reprimanded the executives who carried out this behavior. In addition, they should put different hiring practices in place. Does anyone have more information on this? Since this started in 2000, I would assume the company has already fired guilty parties.

The fact that it happened to black folks in France should not be a factor. If they do it to them, then they would do it to me.

That being said, it is an individual decision. I'm not going to drive around the country snatching Mizani and Redken out of folks hands. I realize that it would be hard for folks to give up products that their hair really likes. Hey, I'm being relaistic. In this day and age it would be hard to pull off a product boycott. I would be interested in seeing this as a poll: Who would give up staple products if it was proven the company was racist? And this hasn't been front page news, so I doubt most black folks know about this anyway.

I am disappointed to hear that people are still doing mess like this in the new millenium. The campaign was blatant.
 

aloof one

New Member
I think all the reasons you gave are why I would boycott. So many black people are loyal to their products, they should strive to treat black folks with respect all over the world. We spend a lot of money on their products. I think if people boycotted "en masse" then it would have a bigger effect. But I personally would feel a twinge of guilt whenever I picked up the product if I knew the company was unfair to people who looked like me. So, even if it was a one woman boycott sometimes you have to do what you have to do.

The fine is a good start. I would like to know they reprimanded the executives who carried out this behavior. In addition, they should put different hiring practices in place. Does anyone have more information on this? Since this started in 2000, I would assume the company has already fired guilty parties.

ETA--- When someone black makes a duplicate GF Length & Strength line I will give it up, but for now I am perfectly fine with those green bottles taking over my cabinets.

The fact that it happened to black folks in France should not be a factor. If they do it to them, then they would do it to me.

That being said, it is an individual decision. I'm not going to drive around the country snatching Mizani and Redken out of folks hands. I realize that it would be hard for folks to give up products that their hair really likes. Hey, I'm being relaistic. In this day and age it would be hard to pull off a product boycott. I would be interested in seeing this as a poll: Who would give up staple products if it was proven the company was racist? And this hasn't been front page news, so I doubt most black folks know about this anyway.

I am disappointed to hear that people are still doing mess like this in the new millenium. The campaign was blatant.

I completely understand and can honestly say I do agree with a lot of that. Especially the part where you say you wont try to persuade people to give up their products. I feel that its a damn shame this happened, but I also feel like the guys got what they deserved- it says the head people who started it or one of the guys got prison time- I dont remember how much it said but at least hes doing time? But if we boycotted I just dont feel like it would make much of a difference. Individual efforts just arent as strong as a large group, like EVERYONE boycotting it.

I just feel like if I put all my time into boycotting everything I thought was partially run by someone who was racist, I would be naked, hungry and bald-headed :nono:. Not to mention I wouldn't be getting educated with what I thought was a fine education at Texas A&M...


ETA- When someone black/non racist makes a duplicate of GF Length & Strength line I will boycott, but for now its all I got and it works
 
Last edited:

Miss*Tress

Well-Known Member
but I also feel like the guys got what they deserved- it says the head people who started it or one of the guys got prison time- I dont remember how much it said but at least hes doing time?

"...saw a senior figure at the agency given a three-month suspended prison sentence...", i.e. no prison time whatsoever.
 

aloof one

New Member
"...saw a senior figure at the agency given a three-month suspended prison sentence...", i.e. no prison time whatsoever.
THey didnt even put the guy in jail? Just gave him a suspended sentence? Does that mean he doesnt even have to go at all? Wow. Even Paris Hilton got jail time and her offense was less than these guys :nono:
 
Top