La Cour de Cassation, the French supreme court, heard that in 2000, Garnier, L'Oreal's beauty division, was looking to recruit a sales team for the Fructis Style haircare range.
When the brief went out, one of the requisites was that staff should be "BBR", an acronym for the colours of the French flag and widely used to signify someone who is white and of French descent. It also wanted the women sized between 8 and 12.
The case was brought by anti-racist group SOS Racisme after it was discovered that only 4.65% of sales staff hired were black, Asian or Arab despite those groups covering 38.7% of potential candidates.
L'Oreal and recruitment consultancy Adecco, which handled the recruitment drive, has been fined £25,500 each and ordered to pay the same amount again to SOS Racisme.
L'Oreal expressed "disappointment" over the verdict while Adecco insisted the company had been looking for candidates who "could express themselves in French." Adecco also said the brief to hire BBR candidates was a personal initiative rather than company policy.
The case is the latest embarrassment for L'Oreal over its attitude towards race. Last year it came under scrutiny over allegations it had whitened Beyonce Knowles' skin in an ad, a claim it was forced to deny.
While in India, actress and L'Oreal brand ambassador Aishwarya Rai, who starred in 'Bride and Prejudice', refused a request from the manufacturer to appear in a campaign for a skin whitening cream.
The L'Oreal discrimination case ends as another featuring fashion retailer Abercrombie & Fitch is about to start. A former employee with a prosthetic arm who claims she was forced to work in the storeroom because she did not fit in with the company's "looks policy" is taking the store to an employment tribunal.
Law student Riam Dean is seeking £25,000 in compensation. She said Abercrombie's policy made her question her "worth as a human being".
However the store claimed Dean's problems stemmed from anxiety issues rather than Abercrombie's personnel policy.
Comments
Funny how fake tan is acceptable but lightening cream isn't. What an odd culture we have.
@ Rob: fake tan isn't permenant whilst lightening cream is and can damage your skin. Personally why everyone can't just be happy with whatever tone they are is beyond me but I guess as the saying goes 'the grass is always greener.....'
"There is no single type of beauty; it is a multiple-faceted quality framed by different ethnic origins, aspirations, and expectations that reflect the world's intrinsic diversity.
With a portfolio of powerful, international brands, L'Oréal enters the 21st century by embracing diversity in its global growth agenda."
The above quote is from the L'Oreal website from the section entitled "The diversity of beauty throughout the world" which just goes to show that big corporate brands will feed us all sorts of utter nonsense in the belief that we'll swallow without question. Makes me sick.
if I was a journalist I would get a job at a few of the trendy high street retailers ... I believe the Abercrombie's lawsuit is a sad reflection on what is going as a standard practice amongst Uk "trendy" retailer. Personally I don't care what look my shop assistant has, a smile and willingness to help is all i am looking for!
@ Samantha yes but the skin damaging qualities isn't why it's considered unacceptable. It's deemed to be racist whereas fake tan isn't which was Rob's point.
@ Corine yep, as long as they don't smell!
Rhea - 25/06/2009
This is a disgrace, but not a surprise.
That being said, I don't think as an industry we've got much of a moral high ground on the 'Equal Opportunities' front do you? Check out your nearest brand consultancy or research agency... not many black or Asian representatives amongst the terribly nice white middle class sorts I'll wager. Not many fat birds, trolls or any women over 45 in the average PR agency either.
Kevin - 25/06/2009
@ Nicola You're completely right about Rob's comment, and on the whole I would tend to agree with what he is saying.
But - one viewpoint about what is acceptable and what is not, could be along the lines of:
Fake tan fakes a natural process i.e. the tanning of skin by the sun, whereas skin lightening cream? Are there any natural ways that someone with dark skin can become light. Not to my knowledge, but please let me know if I'm wrong.
Just a thought
Or could you argue that skin lightening cream reverses the natural process i.e. tanning of the skin by the sun?
The ad industry getting uppity on skin color is the supreme irony of ironies, considering the ethnic makeup of the industry workforce, as Rhea rightly points out - as well as the way recruitment is done \(by this I'm referring to the fact that Oxbridge and the wannabes like Durham, Bath, Exeter et al are the only places agencies go to look for new blood)
Rhea - 25/06/2009
Thanks Sam. I cannot be the only one who thinks the old 'cultural fit' issue at recruitment must be responsible for a lot of the clone employees that marketing functions / agencies seem to be full of. Funnily enough, people DO tend to fit into cliques when they're cut from the exactly the same cloth educationally, socially, financially and physically I've always found!
Mind you, the fact that recruitment consultants for our industry are almost always products of said system might just add another layer of prejudice into the recruitment process.
\(PS. I am white, midle class and not hideous myself so I haven't got a chip on my shoulder... and I'm not a brown ricer. It's just not very fair)
The UK ad. industry may not be perfect when it comes to recruitment, but I've always found it impressively meritocratic when it makes an effort. Those with longer memories will recall the dark days before women made great strides towards workplace equality - and I'm thinking of the 1980's, not 1880's - when many ad. agencies were conspicuously progressive relative to other employers. The legacy of those enlightened pioneers is seen today in the relatively large number of talented women working in advertising.
surely limiting recruitment by gender, race, etc is just limiting the opportunity for creativity - if significant proportions of folks in agencies are Oxbridge-types then, as Rhea, Sam and other say, they are limiting the diversity of experience, culture, knowledge, etc that is available to them.
One of the things that makes the UK great \(deny it - go on) is the cultural diversity of the inhabitants - we are a mongrel nation, able to draw on the experience and colour of the whole world - this should be embraced, especially in creative businesses.
Organisations that discriminate are only serving to undermine their own potential - this applies to l'Oreal, A+F and all of 'em - sadly the impact of this isn't quick enough to impact their bottom line \(the only place they really feel it), so a good kick in the janglies every now and again is exactly what's required to remind them not to be elitist pr*cks.
Dan Ng - 27/06/2009
@Rob: The context of skin whiteners is complex in East Asia. Some of it is undoubtedly racial \(if not racist) and akin to eye reshaping surgery that a \(very) few women have done to appear more Caucasian. But most of skin whitening is done to reflect an ideal of women's beauty that might be described as purity, but also places the user in the leisure class; it indicates you don't need to work the land. This works in countries where generally there is less diversity, like Japan.
You could argue that tanning lotions might also be used to reach an ideal of beauty reflecting healthy outdoor living \(and the Western life of leisure). But you cannot say that they are used to change the racial element of identity. Whitening lotions in countries where you have a higher diversity of skin tones \(like India or the United States) can play into larger discussions about race.
Whitening the image of an idealised woman like Beyoncé or Aishwarya Rai makes it harder to have a darker skin tone and still be perceived as beautiful. Which is nice if you're white, but not so good if you're not.
they need to make some ch ch ch changes
Comments
Rob Mortimer - 25/06/2009
Funny how fake tan is acceptable but lightening cream isn't. What an odd culture we have.
Samantha Thomas - 25/06/2009
@ Rob: fake tan isn't permenant whilst lightening cream is and can damage your skin. Personally why everyone can't just be happy with whatever tone they are is beyond me but I guess as the saying goes 'the grass is always greener.....'
Giles Stafford - 25/06/2009
Very good point Rob.
John Gallen - 25/06/2009
"There is no single type of beauty; it is a multiple-faceted quality framed by different ethnic origins, aspirations, and expectations that reflect the world's intrinsic diversity. With a portfolio of powerful, international brands, L'Oréal enters the 21st century by embracing diversity in its global growth agenda." The above quote is from the L'Oreal website from the section entitled "The diversity of beauty throughout the world" which just goes to show that big corporate brands will feed us all sorts of utter nonsense in the belief that we'll swallow without question. Makes me sick.
corine pouvreau miles - 25/06/2009
if I was a journalist I would get a job at a few of the trendy high street retailers ... I believe the Abercrombie's lawsuit is a sad reflection on what is going as a standard practice amongst Uk "trendy" retailer. Personally I don't care what look my shop assistant has, a smile and willingness to help is all i am looking for!
Nicola Lucas - 25/06/2009
@ Samantha yes but the skin damaging qualities isn't why it's considered unacceptable. It's deemed to be racist whereas fake tan isn't which was Rob's point.
Nicola Lucas - 25/06/2009
@ Corine yep, as long as they don't smell!
Rhea - 25/06/2009
This is a disgrace, but not a surprise. That being said, I don't think as an industry we've got much of a moral high ground on the 'Equal Opportunities' front do you? Check out your nearest brand consultancy or research agency... not many black or Asian representatives amongst the terribly nice white middle class sorts I'll wager. Not many fat birds, trolls or any women over 45 in the average PR agency either.
Kevin - 25/06/2009
@ Nicola You're completely right about Rob's comment, and on the whole I would tend to agree with what he is saying. But - one viewpoint about what is acceptable and what is not, could be along the lines of: Fake tan fakes a natural process i.e. the tanning of skin by the sun, whereas skin lightening cream? Are there any natural ways that someone with dark skin can become light. Not to my knowledge, but please let me know if I'm wrong. Just a thought
Gerhard Spangenberg - 25/06/2009
Or could you argue that skin lightening cream reverses the natural process i.e. tanning of the skin by the sun?
Sam Ismail - 25/06/2009
The ad industry getting uppity on skin color is the supreme irony of ironies, considering the ethnic makeup of the industry workforce, as Rhea rightly points out - as well as the way recruitment is done \(by this I'm referring to the fact that Oxbridge and the wannabes like Durham, Bath, Exeter et al are the only places agencies go to look for new blood)
Rhea - 25/06/2009
Thanks Sam. I cannot be the only one who thinks the old 'cultural fit' issue at recruitment must be responsible for a lot of the clone employees that marketing functions / agencies seem to be full of. Funnily enough, people DO tend to fit into cliques when they're cut from the exactly the same cloth educationally, socially, financially and physically I've always found! Mind you, the fact that recruitment consultants for our industry are almost always products of said system might just add another layer of prejudice into the recruitment process. \(PS. I am white, midle class and not hideous myself so I haven't got a chip on my shoulder... and I'm not a brown ricer. It's just not very fair)
Mark King - 25/06/2009
The UK ad. industry may not be perfect when it comes to recruitment, but I've always found it impressively meritocratic when it makes an effort. Those with longer memories will recall the dark days before women made great strides towards workplace equality - and I'm thinking of the 1980's, not 1880's - when many ad. agencies were conspicuously progressive relative to other employers. The legacy of those enlightened pioneers is seen today in the relatively large number of talented women working in advertising.
gotnoteef - 26/06/2009
surely limiting recruitment by gender, race, etc is just limiting the opportunity for creativity - if significant proportions of folks in agencies are Oxbridge-types then, as Rhea, Sam and other say, they are limiting the diversity of experience, culture, knowledge, etc that is available to them. One of the things that makes the UK great \(deny it - go on) is the cultural diversity of the inhabitants - we are a mongrel nation, able to draw on the experience and colour of the whole world - this should be embraced, especially in creative businesses. Organisations that discriminate are only serving to undermine their own potential - this applies to l'Oreal, A+F and all of 'em - sadly the impact of this isn't quick enough to impact their bottom line \(the only place they really feel it), so a good kick in the janglies every now and again is exactly what's required to remind them not to be elitist pr*cks.
Dan Ng - 27/06/2009
@Rob: The context of skin whiteners is complex in East Asia. Some of it is undoubtedly racial \(if not racist) and akin to eye reshaping surgery that a \(very) few women have done to appear more Caucasian. But most of skin whitening is done to reflect an ideal of women's beauty that might be described as purity, but also places the user in the leisure class; it indicates you don't need to work the land. This works in countries where generally there is less diversity, like Japan. You could argue that tanning lotions might also be used to reach an ideal of beauty reflecting healthy outdoor living \(and the Western life of leisure). But you cannot say that they are used to change the racial element of identity. Whitening lotions in countries where you have a higher diversity of skin tones \(like India or the United States) can play into larger discussions about race. Whitening the image of an idealised woman like Beyoncé or Aishwarya Rai makes it harder to have a darker skin tone and still be perceived as beautiful. Which is nice if you're white, but not so good if you're not.
David Bowie - 29/06/2009
they need to make some ch ch ch changes