View Thread

I'm going against my own best judgment in responding to Jon's morbidly
timed posting (because he doesn't engage in debates -- just rants), but
here goes anyway. I have many reasons to doubt the veracity, or at
least the objectivity, of Jon's research in general (please refer to
prior debates on this list for verification), and so I continue this
skepticism in regard to his perspective on The Body Shop. I simply
don't know if what he says is true.

Nonetheless, let's just assume that what he says about The Body Shop is
true -- maybe it actually is (stranger things have happened), so let's
roll with that assumption. Now, is his rant against Anita due to what
would then be hypocrisy -- the claim that she publicly espoused one
image while actually running her company in the opposite way? If so,
that's a fair criticism; I don't know how many more closeted "family
values" politicians I can handle before I lose it.

But if his "No, we do not like the Body Shop" rant is based simply on
the claimed socially irresponsible practices of the firm -- and not on
the contrast with its espoused principles -- then we have an interesting
bit of hypocrisy on the part of Jon. Unless I've totally misinterpreted
his perspective (also in the realm of possibility), I think that Jon has
no quarrel with firms running themselves in ways that maximize their
profit, and in the process, engaging in all the practices attributed
below to The Body Shop. In fact, and again I'm just stating my
understanding of Jon's position, he believes it illogical, if not
economically immoral (if there's such a thing) for the hippies of yore
and their current apologists in academia to dictate to firms an agenda
of social responsibility. By that, in Jon's stated perspective, he does
not view, say, low-cost outsourcing as "evil", but instead views
pressuring firms to engage in social responsible practices such as
propping up inefficient suppliers as "evil." So I'm taken aback -- a
bit befuddled -- by the description he's forwarded (I think he's simply
putting forth someone else's statement, but he seems to stand behind
it), that the Body Shop's practices were "evil" -- "like every other
evil corporation."

So to summarize what I think is going on here, Jon is now describing
many common business practices as "evil" -- and many on this list might
agree on some aspects of this -- and saying that no, he doesn't like
such firms; yet Jon has previously been a water carrier for "free
enterprise" positions that say that firms should be unfettered to do
whatever makes the most profit, and tying their hands through social
activism is actually the "evil."

Jon -- when a company engages in socially irresponsible practices, is it
only evil, and subject to your ire, if it holds out that it actually is
socially responsible; or do you now share the same distaste for any firm
that engages in socially irresponsible practices such as those you
ascribe to The Body Shop?

As (and if) you answer, bear in mind that most every company today --
not just the darlings of us hippy apologists -- espouses that it follows
some sort of social responsibility mission. Thus, it seems to me that
they all must then follow through on these practices, or you must not
like them. Either way provides an interesting outcome -- either you
start to attack mainstream firms for their hypocritical behaviors with
the same gusto you've been hacking away at many of us with, or you
become a pinko commie hippie because you will have to dislike most every
firm in the economy. I'm curious to see the outcome -- or how you
dismiss the hypocrisy.

Best,
Mike


***********************
Michael L. Barnett, PhD
University of South Florida
College of Business Administration
Department of Management & Organization
4202 E. Fowler Avenue, BSN 3213
Tampa, FL 33620-5500
Phone: 813-974-1727
Fax: 813-974-1734
E-mail: mbarnett@coba.usf.edu
Webpage: http://www.coba.usf.edu/barnett

View my research on my SSRN Author page:
<http://ssrn.com/author=414796>
**************************************************
-----Original Message-----
From: Organizations and the Natural Environment Discussion
[mailto:ONE-L@AOMLISTS.pace.edu] On Behalf Of Jon Entine
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 12:05 PM
To: ONE-L@AOMLISTS.pace.edu
Subject: No time for hagiography or a hatchet time--the legacy of Anita
Roddick



It's not appropriate to "dance on graves" but it is an appropriate time
for critical thinking. The unfiltered praise of Roddick, based on her
cult status, needs to be balanced against the facts. Her company hurt
many people, including women entrepreneurs who bought Body Shop's
because they believed her rhetoric about "responsible business" applied
to the Body Shop as well as to others..but it often did not.

What is Roddick's real legacy?

I found the posting below on a "green business" site today:

Body Shop founder Anita Roddick dead.

The Body Shop was little short of a case study in how to be a sneaky wee
capitalist. Anita Roddick took poor quality generic cosmetics of
Non-sustainable origin (petrochemicals) and marketed them as social
idealism, tacking the Body Shop onto any cause that would give them free
advertising. They used ingredients tested on animals while maintaining a
public anti-animal testing stance and operated a small fair-trade style
system for the benefit of PR while sourcing the vast bulk of their
materials as cheaply and exploitatively as possible. not wanting to miss
any tricks, they've also put out products contaminated with goodness
like formaldehyde and pursue anyone asking the wrong questions very
aggressively, like every other evil corporation.

No, we do not like the Body Shop.



________________________________


Jon Entine

Morbidly timed? Please. When any "leader" dies, obituary and trend writers
don't just roll out the plaudits...they assess the positives and negatives,
the good with the bad. They look for context.

Should we have ignored Nixon's excesses and just celebrated him for opening
the world to China? Should we celebrate Reagan's presidency but not look at
his economic legacy? When they died, their lives were reviewed --in full. No
one called that "morbid." It's called good journalism and critical thinking.
Anita Roddick deserves no more, no less.

It's fascinating that this mystery Michael Barnett person -- never heard of
you frankly -- attributes someone else's quotes (particularly in isolating
the 'evil corporation' phrase) to represent my views..that's not discussion,
but argument ad hominem and guilt by association.

My body of work is transparent and nuanced. It's left, center, and right. As
a card carrying left Democrat (and co-founder of my local Democratic Club in
Indian Hill, Ohio, a bastion of Republicanism), I find your desire to box
people into categories more reflective of your views than mine.

If you care to read any of what I've written about ethical business--which
you have clearly closed your mind to and not done--some of it is available
on my website at www.jonentine.com. I also write a monthly column for the
liberal magazine Ethical Corporation, and am on its board. Here is my latest
article on Darfur: http://www.ethicalcorp.com/content.asp?ContentID=5363

As for Body Shop, it's clear you have not read my 10,000 word article,
censored by Body Shop's right wing legal, team that preceded "Shattered
Image," but didn't resurface until it was published by the leftwing book
publisher Nation, in the book KILLED, by David Wallis. Inquiring minds want
to know.

You have not read London Greenpeace's carefully written analysis of the gap
between Roddick's overheated rhetoric and the companies very unethical
pattern of operations...available widely still on the Internet (and linked
from my site.).

If you care about reaching informed opinions, I suggest reading the very
detailed 50+ page social audit on the Body Shop downloadable from my
website, and attached.

If you have something constructive to debate--about what I really did write,
rather than what you attribute to me--I'd be happy to engage in a thoughtful
debate or discussion.

Jon


On 9/11/07 1:05 PM, "Barnett, Michael" <mbarnett@coba.usf.edu> wrote:

> I'm going against my own best judgment in responding to Jon's morbidly
> timed posting (because he doesn't engage in debates -- just rants), but
> here goes anyway. I have many reasons to doubt the veracity, or at
> least the objectivity, of Jon's research in general (please refer to
> prior debates on this list for verification), and so I continue this
> skepticism in regard to his perspective on The Body Shop. I simply
> don't know if what he says is true.
>
> Nonetheless, let's just assume that what he says about The Body Shop is
> true -- maybe it actually is (stranger things have happened), so let's
> roll with that assumption. Now, is his rant against Anita due to what
> would then be hypocrisy -- the claim that she publicly espoused one
> image while actually running her company in the opposite way? If so,
> that's a fair criticism; I don't know how many more closeted "family
> values" politicians I can handle before I lose it.
>
> But if his "No, we do not like the Body Shop" rant is based simply on
> the claimed socially irresponsible practices of the firm -- and not on
> the contrast with its espoused principles -- then we have an interesting
> bit of hypocrisy on the part of Jon. Unless I've totally misinterpreted
> his perspective (also in the realm of possibility), I think that Jon has
> no quarrel with firms running themselves in ways that maximize their
> profit, and in the process, engaging in all the practices attributed
> below to The Body Shop. In fact, and again I'm just stating my
> understanding of Jon's position, he believes it illogical, if not
> economically immoral (if there's such a thing) for the hippies of yore
> and their current apologists in academia to dictate to firms an agenda
> of social responsibility. By that, in Jon's stated perspective, he does
> not view, say, low-cost outsourcing as "evil", but instead views
> pressuring firms to engage in social responsible practices such as
> propping up inefficient suppliers as "evil." So I'm taken aback -- a
> bit befuddled -- by the description he's forwarded (I think he's simply
> putting forth someone else's statement, but he seems to stand behind
> it), that the Body Shop's practices were "evil" -- "like every other
> evil corporation."
>
> So to summarize what I think is going on here, Jon is now describing
> many common business practices as "evil" -- and many on this list might
> agree on some aspects of this -- and saying that no, he doesn't like
> such firms; yet Jon has previously been a water carrier for "free
> enterprise" positions that say that firms should be unfettered to do
> whatever makes the most profit, and tying their hands through social
> activism is actually the "evil."
>
> Jon -- when a company engages in socially irresponsible practices, is it
> only evil, and subject to your ire, if it holds out that it actually is
> socially responsible; or do you now share the same distaste for any firm
> that engages in socially irresponsible practices such as those you
> ascribe to The Body Shop?
>
> As (and if) you answer, bear in mind that most every company today --
> not just the darlings of us hippy apologists -- espouses that it follows
> some sort of social responsibility mission. Thus, it seems to me that
> they all must then follow through on these practices, or you must not
> like them. Either way provides an interesting outcome -- either you
> start to attack mainstream firms for their hypocritical behaviors with
> the same gusto you've been hacking away at many of us with, or you
> become a pinko commie hippie because you will have to dislike most every
> firm in the economy. I'm curious to see the outcome -- or how you
> dismiss the hypocrisy.
>
> Best,
> Mike
>
>
> ***********************
> Michael L. Barnett, PhD
> University of South Florida
> College of Business Administration
> Department of Management & Organization
> 4202 E. Fowler Avenue, BSN 3213
> Tampa, FL 33620-5500
> Phone: 813-974-1727
> Fax: 813-974-1734
> E-mail: mbarnett@coba.usf.edu
> Webpage: http://www.coba.usf.edu/barnett
>
> View my research on my SSRN Author page:
> <http://ssrn.com/author=414796>
> **************************************************
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Organizations and the Natural Environment Discussion
> [mailto:ONE-L@AOMLISTS.pace.edu] On Behalf Of Jon Entine
> Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 12:05 PM
> To: ONE-L@AOMLISTS.pace.edu
> Subject: No time for hagiography or a hatchet time--the legacy of Anita
> Roddick
>
>
>
> It's not appropriate to "dance on graves" but it is an appropriate time
> for critical thinking. The unfiltered praise of Roddick, based on her
> cult status, needs to be balanced against the facts. Her company hurt
> many people, including women entrepreneurs who bought Body Shop's
> because they believed her rhetoric about "responsible business" applied
> to the Body Shop as well as to others..but it often did not.
>
> What is Roddick's real legacy?
>
> I found the posting below on a "green business" site today:
>
> Body Shop founder Anita Roddick dead.
>
> The Body Shop was little short of a case study in how to be a sneaky wee
> capitalist. Anita Roddick took poor quality generic cosmetics of
> Non-sustainable origin (petrochemicals) and marketed them as social
> idealism, tacking the Body Shop onto any cause that would give them free
> advertising. They used ingredients tested on animals while maintaining a
> public anti-animal testing stance and operated a small fair-trade style
> system for the benefit of PR while sourcing the vast bulk of their
> materials as cheaply and exploitatively as possible. not wanting to miss
> any tricks, they've also put out products contaminated with goodness
> like formaldehyde and pursue anyone asking the wrong questions very
> aggressively, like every other evil corporation.
>
> No, we do not like the Body Shop.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
>
> Jon Entine

From Wikipedia:

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin:
"argument to the person", "argument against the man") consists of
replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to an
irrelevant characteristic about the person making the argument or claim,
rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing
evidence against the claim.

From Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry: mor*bid
Pronunciation: 'mor-b&d
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin morbidus diseased, from morbus disease
1 a : of, relating to, or characteristic of disease <morbid anatomy> b :
affected with or induced by disease c : productive
of disease <morbid substances>
2 : abnormally susceptible to or characterized by gloomy or unwholesome
feelings
3 : GRISLY, GRUESOME <morbid details> <morbid curiosity>

Let's go with definition #2 for this posting.


Well, I'll end my portion of the "debate" here, given my view that it's
not possible to debate Jon, by saying that you addressed my question by
attributing a variety of favorable characteristics to yourself and your
work, and by attributing to me a lack of understanding of all of your
nuanced arguments by (incorrectly) assuming that I hadn't read your
prior work on the topic. Furthermore, much of your rant was about my
description of your timing as morbid -- I think it is, and even if it
weren't, and even if it's typically the way things are done, that
doesn't make the point about your hypocrisy regarding social
responsibility any less pressing.

You assembled a post to the list that contained a quote from someone
else. A reasonable reader of your post must assume that you selected
that quote and forwarded it on to all of us because you support the
position in that post. Why else would you send that post? Are we now
supposed to believe that you don't support the point in that post? Are
you in the habit of sending random quotes to folks? If so, I ask that
you check your random quote generator, as it seems it doesn't actually
pull a random selection -- it's a bit biased in one direction.

As per me, while I think the point is to make the arguments independent
of the person, and so I'm fine with you describing me as a "mystery"
person, it's getting a little comical, since I've "debated" you several
times on this list, and have a published debate with you in Organization
& Environment. In addition, I have a public website, listed below, that
provides quite a lot of information about me and my work. I've read
your "10,000 word" article, and other work, and I've even cited you in
my work. You're welcome to read my work, or ignore it -- either way,
the argument I put forth about your hypocrisy on the topic stands.

Signing off,
"Mystery" Mike

***********************
Michael L. Barnett, PhD
University of South Florida
College of Business Administration
Department of Management & Organization
4202 E. Fowler Avenue, BSN 3213
Tampa, FL 33620-5500
Phone: 813-974-1727
Fax: 813-974-1734
E-mail: mbarnett@coba.usf.edu
Webpage: http://www.coba.usf.edu/barnett

View my research on my SSRN Author page:
<http://ssrn.com/author=414796>
**************************************************

-----Original Message-----
From: Jon Entine [mailto:runjonrun@earthlink.net]
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 1:47 PM
To: Organizations and the Natural Environment Discussion; Barnett,
Michael
Subject: Re: No time for hagiography or a hatchet time--the legacy of
Anita Roddick

Morbidly timed? Please. When any "leader" dies, obituary and trend
writers
don't just roll out the plaudits...they assess the positives and
negatives,
the good with the bad. They look for context.

Should we have ignored Nixon's excesses and just celebrated him for
opening
the world to China? Should we celebrate Reagan's presidency but not look
at
his economic legacy? When they died, their lives were reviewed --in
full. No
one called that "morbid." It's called good journalism and critical
thinking.
Anita Roddick deserves no more, no less.

It's fascinating that this mystery Michael Barnett person -- never heard
of
you frankly -- attributes someone else's quotes (particularly in
isolating
the 'evil corporation' phrase) to represent my views..that's not
discussion,
but argument ad hominem and guilt by association.

My body of work is transparent and nuanced. It's left, center, and
right. As
a card carrying left Democrat (and co-founder of my local Democratic
Club in
Indian Hill, Ohio, a bastion of Republicanism), I find your desire to
box
people into categories more reflective of your views than mine.

If you care to read any of what I've written about ethical
business--which
you have clearly closed your mind to and not done--some of it is
available
on my website at www.jonentine.com. I also write a monthly column for
the
liberal magazine Ethical Corporation, and am on its board. Here is my
latest
article on Darfur: http://www.ethicalcorp.com/content.asp?ContentID=5363

As for Body Shop, it's clear you have not read my 10,000 word article,
censored by Body Shop's right wing legal, team that preceded "Shattered
Image," but didn't resurface until it was published by the leftwing book
publisher Nation, in the book KILLED, by David Wallis. Inquiring minds
want
to know.

You have not read London Greenpeace's carefully written analysis of the
gap
between Roddick's overheated rhetoric and the companies very unethical
pattern of operations...available widely still on the Internet (and
linked
from my site.).

If you care about reaching informed opinions, I suggest reading the very
detailed 50+ page social audit on the Body Shop downloadable from my
website, and attached.

If you have something constructive to debate--about what I really did
write,
rather than what you attribute to me--I'd be happy to engage in a
thoughtful
debate or discussion.

Jon


On 9/11/07 1:05 PM, "Barnett, Michael" <mbarnett@coba.usf.edu> wrote:

> I'm going against my own best judgment in responding to Jon's morbidly
> timed posting (because he doesn't engage in debates -- just rants),
but
> here goes anyway. I have many reasons to doubt the veracity, or at
> least the objectivity, of Jon's research in general (please refer to
> prior debates on this list for verification), and so I continue this
> skepticism in regard to his perspective on The Body Shop. I simply
> don't know if what he says is true.
>
> Nonetheless, let's just assume that what he says about The Body Shop
is
> true -- maybe it actually is (stranger things have happened), so let's
> roll with that assumption. Now, is his rant against Anita due to what
> would then be hypocrisy -- the claim that she publicly espoused one
> image while actually running her company in the opposite way? If so,
> that's a fair criticism; I don't know how many more closeted "family
> values" politicians I can handle before I lose it.
>
> But if his "No, we do not like the Body Shop" rant is based simply on
> the claimed socially irresponsible practices of the firm -- and not on
> the contrast with its espoused principles -- then we have an
interesting
> bit of hypocrisy on the part of Jon. Unless I've totally
misinterpreted
> his perspective (also in the realm of possibility), I think that Jon
has
> no quarrel with firms running themselves in ways that maximize their
> profit, and in the process, engaging in all the practices attributed
> below to The Body Shop. In fact, and again I'm just stating my
> understanding of Jon's position, he believes it illogical, if not
> economically immoral (if there's such a thing) for the hippies of yore
> and their current apologists in academia to dictate to firms an agenda
> of social responsibility. By that, in Jon's stated perspective, he
does
> not view, say, low-cost outsourcing as "evil", but instead views
> pressuring firms to engage in social responsible practices such as
> propping up inefficient suppliers as "evil." So I'm taken aback -- a
> bit befuddled -- by the description he's forwarded (I think he's
simply
> putting forth someone else's statement, but he seems to stand behind
> it), that the Body Shop's practices were "evil" -- "like every other
> evil corporation."
>
> So to summarize what I think is going on here, Jon is now describing
> many common business practices as "evil" -- and many on this list
might
> agree on some aspects of this -- and saying that no, he doesn't like
> such firms; yet Jon has previously been a water carrier for "free
> enterprise" positions that say that firms should be unfettered to do
> whatever makes the most profit, and tying their hands through social
> activism is actually the "evil."
>
> Jon -- when a company engages in socially irresponsible practices, is
it
> only evil, and subject to your ire, if it holds out that it actually
is
> socially responsible; or do you now share the same distaste for any
firm
> that engages in socially irresponsible practices such as those you
> ascribe to The Body Shop?
>
> As (and if) you answer, bear in mind that most every company today --
> not just the darlings of us hippy apologists -- espouses that it
follows
> some sort of social responsibility mission. Thus, it seems to me that
> they all must then follow through on these practices, or you must not
> like them. Either way provides an interesting outcome -- either you
> start to attack mainstream firms for their hypocritical behaviors with
> the same gusto you've been hacking away at many of us with, or you
> become a pinko commie hippie because you will have to dislike most
every
> firm in the economy. I'm curious to see the outcome -- or how you
> dismiss the hypocrisy.
>
> Best,
> Mike
>
>
> ***********************
> Michael L. Barnett, PhD
> University of South Florida
> College of Business Administration
> Department of Management & Organization
> 4202 E. Fowler Avenue, BSN 3213
> Tampa, FL 33620-5500
> Phone: 813-974-1727
> Fax: 813-974-1734
> E-mail: mbarnett@coba.usf.edu
> Webpage: http://www.coba.usf.edu/barnett
>
> View my research on my SSRN Author page:
> <http://ssrn.com/author=414796>
> **************************************************
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Organizations and the Natural Environment Discussion
> [mailto:ONE-L@AOMLISTS.pace.edu] On Behalf Of Jon Entine
> Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 12:05 PM
> To: ONE-L@AOMLISTS.pace.edu
> Subject: No time for hagiography or a hatchet time--the legacy of
Anita
> Roddick
>
>
>
> It's not appropriate to "dance on graves" but it is an appropriate
time
> for critical thinking. The unfiltered praise of Roddick, based on her
> cult status, needs to be balanced against the facts. Her company hurt
> many people, including women entrepreneurs who bought Body Shop's
> because they believed her rhetoric about "responsible business"
applied
> to the Body Shop as well as to others..but it often did not.
>
> What is Roddick's real legacy?
>
> I found the posting below on a "green business" site today:
>
> Body Shop founder Anita Roddick dead.
>
> The Body Shop was little short of a case study in how to be a sneaky
wee
> capitalist. Anita Roddick took poor quality generic cosmetics of
> Non-sustainable origin (petrochemicals) and marketed them as social
> idealism, tacking the Body Shop onto any cause that would give them
free
> advertising. They used ingredients tested on animals while maintaining
a
> public anti-animal testing stance and operated a small fair-trade
style
> system for the benefit of PR while sourcing the vast bulk of their
> materials as cheaply and exploitatively as possible. not wanting to
miss
> any tricks, they've also put out products contaminated with goodness
> like formaldehyde and pursue anyone asking the wrong questions very
> aggressively, like every other evil corporation.
>
> No, we do not like the Body Shop.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
>
> Jon Entine

In my opinion, Professor Barnett is not a mystery person to most of the readers of this listserve. His work is highly respected.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Barnett" <mbarnett@coba.usf.edu>
To: ONE-L@AOMLISTS.pace.edu
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 2:16:39 PM (GMT-0500) America/New_York
Subject: Re: No time for hagiography or a hatchet time--the legacy of Anita Roddick

From Wikipedia:

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin:
"argument to the person", "argument against the man") consists of
replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to an
irrelevant characteristic about the person making the argument or claim,
rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing
evidence against the claim.

From Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry: mor*bid
Pronunciation: 'mor-b&d
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin morbidus diseased, from morbus disease
1 a : of, relating to, or characteristic of disease <morbid anatomy> b :
affected with or induced by disease c : productive
of disease <morbid substances>
2 : abnormally susceptible to or characterized by gloomy or unwholesome
feelings
3 : GRISLY, GRUESOME <morbid details> <morbid curiosity>

Let's go with definition #2 for this posting.


Well, I'll end my portion of the "debate" here, given my view that it's
not possible to debate Jon, by saying that you addressed my question by
attributing a variety of favorable characteristics to yourself and your
work, and by attributing to me a lack of understanding of all of your
nuanced arguments by (incorrectly) assuming that I hadn't read your
prior work on the topic. Furthermore, much of your rant was about my
description of your timing as morbid -- I think it is, and even if it
weren't, and even if it's typically the way things are done, that
doesn't make the point about your hypocrisy regarding social
responsibility any less pressing.

You assembled a post to the list that contained a quote from someone
else. A reasonable reader of your post must assume that you selected
that quote and forwarded it on to all of us because you support the
position in that post. Why else would you send that post? Are we now
supposed to believe that you don't support the point in that post? Are
you in the habit of sending random quotes to folks? If so, I ask that
you check your random quote generator, as it seems it doesn't actually
pull a random selection -- it's a bit biased in one direction.

As per me, while I think the point is to make the arguments independent
of the person, and so I'm fine with you describing me as a "mystery"
person, it's getting a little comical, since I've "debated" you several
times on this list, and have a published debate with you in Organization
& Environment. In addition, I have a public website, listed below, that
provides quite a lot of information about me and my work. I've read
your "10,000 word" article, and other work, and I've even cited you in
my work. You're welcome to read my work, or ignore it -- either way,
the argument I put forth about your hypocrisy on the topic stands.

Signing off,
"Mystery" Mike

***********************
Michael L. Barnett, PhD
University of South Florida
College of Business Administration
Department of Management & Organization
4202 E. Fowler Avenue, BSN 3213
Tampa, FL 33620-5500
Phone: 813-974-1727
Fax: 813-974-1734
E-mail: mbarnett@coba.usf.edu
Webpage: http://www.coba.usf.edu/barnett

View my research on my SSRN Author page:
<http://ssrn.com/author=414796>
**************************************************

-----Original Message-----
From: Jon Entine [mailto:runjonrun@earthlink.net]
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 1:47 PM
To: Organizations and the Natural Environment Discussion; Barnett,
Michael
Subject: Re: No time for hagiography or a hatchet time--the legacy of
Anita Roddick

Morbidly timed? Please. When any "leader" dies, obituary and trend
writers
don't just roll out the plaudits...they assess the positives and
negatives,
the good with the bad. They look for context.

Should we have ignored Nixon's excesses and just celebrated him for
opening
the world to China? Should we celebrate Reagan's presidency but not look
at
his economic legacy? When they died, their lives were reviewed --in
full. No
one called that "morbid." It's called good journalism and critical
thinking.
Anita Roddick deserves no more, no less.

It's fascinating that this mystery Michael Barnett person -- never heard
of
you frankly -- attributes someone else's quotes (particularly in
isolating
the 'evil corporation' phrase) to represent my views..that's not
discussion,
but argument ad hominem and guilt by association.

My body of work is transparent and nuanced. It's left, center, and
right. As
a card carrying left Democrat (and co-founder of my local Democratic
Club in
Indian Hill, Ohio, a bastion of Republicanism), I find your desire to
box
people into categories more reflective of your views than mine.

If you care to read any of what I've written about ethical
business--which
you have clearly closed your mind to and not done--some of it is
available
on my website at www.jonentine.com. I also write a monthly column for
the
liberal magazine Ethical Corporation, and am on its board. Here is my
latest
article on Darfur: http://www.ethicalcorp.com/content.asp?ContentID=5363

As for Body Shop, it's clear you have not read my 10,000 word article,
censored by Body Shop's right wing legal, team that preceded "Shattered
Image," but didn't resurface until it was published by the leftwing book
publisher Nation, in the book KILLED, by David Wallis. Inquiring minds
want
to know.

You have not read London Greenpeace's carefully written analysis of the
gap
between Roddick's overheated rhetoric and the companies very unethical
pattern of operations...available widely still on the Internet (and
linked
from my site.).

If you care about reaching informed opinions, I suggest reading the very
detailed 50+ page social audit on the Body Shop downloadable from my
website, and attached.

If you have something constructive to debate--about what I really did
write,
rather than what you attribute to me--I'd be happy to engage in a
thoughtful
debate or discussion.

Jon


On 9/11/07 1:05 PM, "Barnett, Michael" <mbarnett@coba.usf.edu> wrote:

> I'm going against my own best judgment in responding to Jon's morbidly
> timed posting (because he doesn't engage in debates -- just rants),
but
> here goes anyway. I have many reasons to doubt the veracity, or at
> least the objectivity, of Jon's research in general (please refer to
> prior debates on this list for verification), and so I continue this
> skepticism in regard to his perspective on The Body Shop. I simply
> don't know if what he says is true.
>
> Nonetheless, let's just assume that what he says about The Body Shop
is
> true -- maybe it actually is (stranger things have happened), so let's
> roll with that assumption. Now, is his rant against Anita due to what
> would then be hypocrisy -- the claim that she publicly espoused one
> image while actually running her company in the opposite way? If so,
> that's a fair criticism; I don't know how many more closeted "family
> values" politicians I can handle before I lose it.
>
> But if his "No, we do not like the Body Shop" rant is based simply on
> the claimed socially irresponsible practices of the firm -- and not on
> the contrast with its espoused principles -- then we have an
interesting
> bit of hypocrisy on the part of Jon. Unless I've totally
misinterpreted
> his perspective (also in the realm of possibility), I think that Jon
has
> no quarrel with firms running themselves in ways that maximize their
> profit, and in the process, engaging in all the practices attributed
> below to The Body Shop. In fact, and again I'm just stating my
> understanding of Jon's position, he believes it illogical, if not
> economically immoral (if there's such a thing) for the hippies of yore
> and their current apologists in academia to dictate to firms an agenda
> of social responsibility. By that, in Jon's stated perspective, he
does
> not view, say, low-cost outsourcing as "evil", but instead views
> pressuring firms to engage in social responsible practices such as
> propping up inefficient suppliers as "evil." So I'm taken aback -- a
> bit befuddled -- by the description he's forwarded (I think he's
simply
> putting forth someone else's statement, but he seems to stand behind
> it), that the Body Shop's practices were "evil" -- "like every other
> evil corporation."
>
> So to summarize what I think is going on here, Jon is now describing
> many common business practices as "evil" -- and many on this list
might
> agree on some aspects of this -- and saying that no, he doesn't like
> such firms; yet Jon has previously been a water carrier for "free
> enterprise" positions that say that firms should be unfettered to do
> whatever makes the most profit, and tying their hands through social
> activism is actually the "evil."
>
> Jon -- when a company engages in socially irresponsible practices, is
it
> only evil, and subject to your ire, if it holds out that it actually
is
> socially responsible; or do you now share the same distaste for any
firm
> that engages in socially irresponsible practices such as those you
> ascribe to The Body Shop?
>
> As (and if) you answer, bear in mind that most every company today --
> not just the darlings of us hippy apologists -- espouses that it
follows
> some sort of social responsibility mission. Thus, it seems to me that
> they all must then follow through on these practices, or you must not
> like them. Either way provides an interesting outcome -- either you
> start to attack mainstream firms for their hypocritical behaviors with
> the same gusto you've been hacking away at many of us with, or you
> become a pinko commie hippie because you will have to dislike most
every
> firm in the economy. I'm curious to see the outcome -- or how you
> dismiss the hypocrisy.
>
> Best,
> Mike
>
>
> ***********************
> Michael L. Barnett, PhD
> University of South Florida
> College of Business Administration
> Department of Management & Organization
> 4202 E. Fowler Avenue, BSN 3213
> Tampa, FL 33620-5500
> Phone: 813-974-1727
> Fax: 813-974-1734
> E-mail: mbarnett@coba.usf.edu
> Webpage: http://www.coba.usf.edu/barnett
>
> View my research on my SSRN Author page:
> <http://ssrn.com/author=414796>
> **************************************************
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Organizations and the Natural Environment Discussion
> [mailto:ONE-L@AOMLISTS.pace.edu] On Behalf Of Jon Entine
> Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 12:05 PM
> To: ONE-L@AOMLISTS.pace.edu
> Subject: No time for hagiography or a hatchet time--the legacy of
Anita
> Roddick
>
>
>
> It's not appropriate to "dance on graves" but it is an appropriate
time
> for critical thinking. The unfiltered praise of Roddick, based on her
> cult status, needs to be balanced against the facts. Her company hurt
> many people, including women entrepreneurs who bought Body Shop's
> because they believed her rhetoric about "responsible business"
applied
> to the Body Shop as well as to others..but it often did not.
>
> What is Roddick's real legacy?
>
> I found the posting below on a "green business" site today:
>
> Body Shop founder Anita Roddick dead.
>
> The Body Shop was little short of a case study in how to be a sneaky
wee
> capitalist. Anita Roddick took poor quality generic cosmetics of
> Non-sustainable origin (petrochemicals) and marketed them as social
> idealism, tacking the Body Shop onto any cause that would give them
free
> advertising. They used ingredients tested on animals while maintaining
a
> public anti-animal testing stance and operated a small fair-trade
style
> system for the benefit of PR while sourcing the vast bulk of their
> materials as cheaply and exploitatively as possible. not wanting to
miss
> any tricks, they've also put out products contaminated with goodness
> like formaldehyde and pursue anyone asking the wrong questions very
> aggressively, like every other evil corporation.
>
> No, we do not like the Body Shop.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
>
> Jon Entine

I explored this argument in chapter 2 of my PhD, which you can read
here:
http://intergon.net/phd/phdch2.doc
Do a search on Roddick and you will find the sections that I discussed
this.
I do not disagree with Jon.

I seem to recall that my literature review suggested that some view
Anita Roddick as a messianic figure, while others view her as a ruthless
capitalist.

I suppose at times like this it is best to say only positive things
about someone. However, it could be said that she created a cult; and
all cults tend to be somewhat manipulative.

Personally, I think Roddick created a market for products that no one
really needs and in doing so consumed a lot of natural resources that
would have otherwise not been consumed (people might have bought all
those creams and gells from somewhere else - or would they have??). In
doing so she created community, which is important. She also created a
sense of "sustainable behaviour", which is also important. So, I admire
that. You know, most people are weak self-serving creatures who will
consume whatever they are told to consume; Roddick created a "good"
thing for them to consume. In that sense I think that she is someone to
be admired. However, I never saw a need to consume the products and
rhetoric that she produced. But some people need that sort of thing.

When I was very young I used to go with my mother to her singing
rehearsals with an organist at a local Toronto church. I have fond
memories of this nice man Ken. Ken Mills went on to start a cult in a
small town near Toronto, Ontario, Canada and I have found his books in
Byron Bay, NSW, Australia. He made millions of dollars selling nothing
more than his niceness in association with his framework of God. He has
been widely criticised for luring in people and ripping them off, but a
the same time he has done some great goodness for humanity by collecting
a band of nutty oddballs and keeping them out of the street and away
from normal people. Perhaps that is another good thing that Roddick
did.

Heil Roddick! She was a truly good person and a great builder of
community. She did not kill 6,000,000 people in the process (I have met
some really very nice people who say that was Hitler's only mistake).
So, I think she could be viewed as a better person than others.

I hope I have not burst anyone's bubble. ;-)

Lionel Boxer CD PhD MBA BTech(IndEng) - 0411267256
Research Fellow - lionel.boxer@rmit.edu.au
Centre for Management Quality Research
What's up?: http://intergon.net/events.html
Mother&Child Relief Foundation see events page
http://www.myspace.com/thesustainableway

>>> "Barnett, Michael" <mbarnett@coba.usf.edu> 12/09/2007 3:05 am >>>
I'm going against my own best judgment in responding to Jon's morbidly
timed posting (because he doesn't engage in debates -- just rants),
but
here goes anyway. I have many reasons to doubt the veracity, or at
least the objectivity, of Jon's research in general (please refer to
prior debates on this list for verification), and so I continue this
skepticism in regard to his perspective on The Body Shop. I simply
don't know if what he says is true.

Nonetheless, let's just assume that what he says about The Body Shop
is
true -- maybe it actually is (stranger things have happened), so let's
roll with that assumption. Now, is his rant against Anita due to what
would then be hypocrisy -- the claim that she publicly espoused one
image while actually running her company in the opposite way? If so,
that's a fair criticism; I don't know how many more closeted "family
values" politicians I can handle before I lose it.

But if his "No, we do not like the Body Shop" rant is based simply on
the claimed socially irresponsible practices of the firm -- and not on
the contrast with its espoused principles -- then we have an
interesting
bit of hypocrisy on the part of Jon. Unless I've totally
misinterpreted
his perspective (also in the realm of possibility), I think that Jon
has
no quarrel with firms running themselves in ways that maximize their
profit, and in the process, engaging in all the practices attributed
below to The Body Shop. In fact, and again I'm just stating my
understanding of Jon's position, he believes it illogical, if not
economically immoral (if there's such a thing) for the hippies of yore
and their current apologists in academia to dictate to firms an agenda
of social responsibility. By that, in Jon's stated perspective, he
does
not view, say, low-cost outsourcing as "evil", but instead views
pressuring firms to engage in social responsible practices such as
propping up inefficient suppliers as "evil." So I'm taken aback -- a
bit befuddled -- by the description he's forwarded (I think he's
simply
putting forth someone else's statement, but he seems to stand behind
it), that the Body Shop's practices were "evil" -- "like every other
evil corporation."

So to summarize what I think is going on here, Jon is now describing
many common business practices as "evil" -- and many on this list
might
agree on some aspects of this -- and saying that no, he doesn't like
such firms; yet Jon has previously been a water carrier for "free
enterprise" positions that say that firms should be unfettered to do
whatever makes the most profit, and tying their hands through social
activism is actually the "evil."

Jon -- when a company engages in socially irresponsible practices, is
it
only evil, and subject to your ire, if it holds out that it actually
is
socially responsible; or do you now share the same distaste for any
firm
that engages in socially irresponsible practices such as those you
ascribe to The Body Shop?

As (and if) you answer, bear in mind that most every company today --
not just the darlings of us hippy apologists -- espouses that it
follows
some sort of social responsibility mission. Thus, it seems to me that
they all must then follow through on these practices, or you must not
like them. Either way provides an interesting outcome -- either you
start to attack mainstream firms for their hypocritical behaviors with
the same gusto you've been hacking away at many of us with, or you
become a pinko commie hippie because you will have to dislike most
every
firm in the economy. I'm curious to see the outcome -- or how you
dismiss the hypocrisy.

Best,
Mike


***********************
Michael L. Barnett, PhD
University of South Florida
College of Business Administration
Department of Management & Organization
4202 E. Fowler Avenue, BSN 3213
Tampa, FL 33620-5500
Phone: 813-974-1727
Fax: 813-974-1734
E-mail: mbarnett@coba.usf.edu
Webpage: http://www.coba.usf.edu/barnett

View my research on my SSRN Author page:
<http://ssrn.com/author=414796>
**************************************************
-----Original Message-----
From: Organizations and the Natural Environment Discussion
[mailto:ONE-L@AOMLISTS.pace.edu] On Behalf Of Jon Entine
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 12:05 PM
To: ONE-L@AOMLISTS.pace.edu
Subject: No time for hagiography or a hatchet time--the legacy of
Anita
Roddick



It's not appropriate to "dance on graves" but it is an appropriate
time
for critical thinking. The unfiltered praise of Roddick, based on her
cult status, needs to be balanced against the facts. Her company hurt
many people, including women entrepreneurs who bought Body Shop's
because they believed her rhetoric about "responsible business"
applied
to the Body Shop as well as to others..but it often did not.

What is Roddick's real legacy?

I found the posting below on a "green business" site today:

Body Shop founder Anita Roddick dead.

The Body Shop was little short of a case study in how to be a sneaky
wee
capitalist. Anita Roddick took poor quality generic cosmetics of
Non-sustainable origin (petrochemicals) and marketed them as social
idealism, tacking the Body Shop onto any cause that would give them
free
advertising. They used ingredients tested on animals while maintaining
a
public anti-animal testing stance and operated a small fair-trade
style
system for the benefit of PR while sourcing the vast bulk of their
materials as cheaply and exploitatively as possible. not wanting to
miss
any tricks, they've also put out products contaminated with goodness
like formaldehyde and pursue anyone asking the wrong questions very
aggressively, like every other evil corporation.

No, we do not like the Body Shop.



________________________________


Jon Entine