Ethical Issues in Unilever's Advertisements

This article discusses the ethical issues in Unilever's advertisements, specifically focusing on the promotion of fairness creams and the negative impact on women and girls. It explores the stakeholders involved and suggests possible alternatives and actions for Unilever to take.

0 | P a g e
Business Ethics
Assignment 1

1 | P a g e
What are the relevant facts?
Unilever is a British-Dutch transnational consumer goods company which has established its
operations across the globe. The company is known for its positive brand reputation due to its
contributions to the achievement of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (Murray, 2018).
The management of the company focuses on prioritising in minimising the negative impact of
the company on the environment while uplifting the lives of consumers. Dove is a personal
care brand owned by Unilever which is known for issuing advertisements that promote self-
confidence among women by accepting their differences.
Fair & Lovely is another personal care brand of Unilever which is guilty of issuing
advertisements that depict that fairness and whiter skin can assist women grew both
romantically and professionally (Shah, 2017). These adverts show that women are not
comfortable with their skin colour due to which they are pressured from society for marriage
and settle down in life. However, as soon as they start using fairness creams, they get their
own voice to make their own decisions in life. These advertisements promote stereotypes that
perpetuate sexism and colourism which is opposite to the achievement of Goal 5 which aims
to empower all women and girls (Unilever, 2019). This shows hypocrisy from Unilever
because the company has prioritised profits above the interest of its customers.
What are the dilemmas or ethical issues in this case?
The concept of business ethics provides that companies should do business in an ethical
manner by providing reasons for how things ought to be in the economic world. They should
focus on arranging their values which assist them in guiding their decisions which are taking
after understanding facts and constructing arguments to determine which is right and wrong
(Crane and Matten, 2016). In the case of Unilever, the principles of business ethics are

2 | P a g e
breached by Unilever. The key ethical issue in these advertisements is that they are simply
and deliberately untrue. The advertisement of the company in Thailand which showed that
fairer girls are smarter than dark-skinned ones is wrong, and it adversely affects the
confidence of dark-skinned girls (Shah, 2017).
Utilitarianism ethical theory judges the morality of a situation based on its consequences; as
per this theory, these advertisements are unethical since they negatively affect people. Fair &
Lovely is distorting the truth by implying things without relevant facts that are based on
stereotypes (Nadeem, 2014). These adverts openly insult dark-skinned Indian women and
promote sexism and colourism which is becoming a major issue. Police brutality against
black people and shooting of Laquan McDonald, a black teen in Chicago, are a good example
of the negative impact of racism based on skin colour (BBC, 2019). Thus, the consequences
of these advertisements can be brutal based on which they are unethical. Unilever promotes
itself as a good corporate citizen still its subsidiaries are engaging in unethical practices that
promotes sexism and colourism which is a major ethical dilemma.
Who are the stakeholders involved? In what way are they
affected?
The key stakeholders involved in this incident include consumers, Unilever and the public.
The consumers of Unilever and Fair & Lovely are affected in this incident because they
purchase their products with a false belief that a fairer skin will help them grow in life (Shah,
2017). The advertisements show drastic changes in skin colour in few weeks which is
misleading marketing and it adversely affects the rights of consumers. Unilever promotes
itself as a sustainable company that focuses on maintaining a balance between the interest of
its stakeholders rather than profit maximisation; however, this incident shows that its wholly
owned brands are violating the principles of business ethics. Fair & Lovely is using a

3 | P a g e
stereotype to attract more customers in order to expand its market share which negatively
affects the global image of Unilever (Iqbal, Danish and Tahir, 2014). Lastly, these
advertisements promote sexism and colourism in countries such as India and Thailand which
negatively affect dark-skinned citizens. These advertisements depict that dark-skinned
individuals are inferior to fair-skinned people and they cannot achieve growth in life until
their skin become fairer. These stereotypes negatively affect the general public.
What are the possible alternatives (course of action)
available?
Utilitarianism is a consequentialist ethical theory in which the outcome matters rather than
the act itself. As per this theory, people should take actions while focusing on the greater
good for a greater number of people (Kalajtzidis, 2013). Based on these principles, the
advertisement posted by Fair & Lovely is not ethical since they lead to horrible consequences
as they promote sexism and colourism. Therefore, a possible alternative course of action
available in this scenario is that the company should evaluate its decisions and incorporate
business ethics principles in these decisions to maintain a balance between the interests of its
stakeholders. The consequences of the decisions taken by the company should be evaluated
by the management before accepting them to ensure that they did not adversely affect
stakeholders (Iqbal, Danish and Tahir, 2014). In this scenario, Fair & Lovely should change
its marketing strategy to promote its products without misrepresenting to its audience. The
company should not degrade or misrepresent dark-skinned people in order to sell more
products.
Another alternative option is discontinuing the products which “claim” to make people’s skin
fairer or whiter. Altruism is an ethical approach which provides that an action is considered
as moral if the consequence of the decision is more benefiting for everyone except the person

4 | P a g e
who is taking the decision (Gantt and Burton, 2013). As per this approach, the decision to
discontinuing skin whitening products will benefit people in countries such as India and
Thailand where people face discrimination based on their skin colour. Discontinuing one of
the most successful product ranges will negatively affect the profitability of Unilever and its
market share, especially in India and Thailand (Khan and Khan, 2012). Moreover, its
competitors will benefit from this decision since they might not discontinue their products in
these areas due to which the problem will persist. However, based on the principles of
Altruism ethics, the company should focus benefit of everyone rather than benefiting itself to
achieve a greater good.
Based on the principles of ethical egoism, the company can also continue its operations and
marketing campaign by relying on these stereotypes to expand its market share and
profitability. Ethical egoism provides that whatever actions serve my self-interest is
considered as morally right action (Rachels, 2012). Based on this approach, parties should put
their welfare above others, and they should selfishly refuse to see beyond themselves. Thus,
Unilever should not interfere with Fair & Lovely’s marketing campaign to ensure that it
prioritised its products and expand its market in countries such as India and Thailand.
What are the ethics involved in these alternatives?
In the first alternative course of action is changing the marketing strategy of Fair & Lovely in
order to avoid relying on stereotypes and misrepresentations to promote the products of the
company. In this approach, the ethical principles given by the Utilitarianism approach are
involved which provides that actions taken by parties are ethical if they assist in achieving
greater happiness for a greater number of people (Mill, 2016). As per this theory, parties
should evaluate the impact and consequences of their actions while taking business decisions.
With the growth in the rate of global social issues such as police brutality and white

5 | P a g e
supremacist movements in the US and Europe, companies should ensure that their actions did
not contribute in these movements (Mills, 2013). They should be responsible for their
stakeholders by evaluating their impact and take business decisions which are in the benefit
of a greater number of people. Thus, in this scenario, changing the marketing strategy of Fair
& Lovely to avoid deceitful advertisement is ethical decision based on Utilitarianism
approach.
The second alternative action is completely removing skin whitening products from countries
such as India and Thailand in order to avoid supporting sexism and colourism. This action is
based on the ethical principles of Altruism which provides that moral value of individual’s
actions based on the consequences of such decision on other individuals regardless of the
consequences on the individual itself (Gino, Ayal and Ariely, 2013). In other words, parties
should focus on taking decisions which have a positive consequence on a great number of
people even if it negative affect the individual who is taking the decision. Deceitful
advertisement by Fair & Lovely is negatively affecting young girls who are dark-skinned
since it lowers their self-confidence and self-esteem. It promotes sexism and colourism
against dark-skinned girls which negatively affect them. Deceitful advertisements are not
only immoral but illegal as per the provisions of the Malaysian Code of Advertising Practice
1977.
The third alternative action is that the company should focus on its personal interests and it
continues its operations. This action is based on the ethical principles of egoism which
provides that moral actions are those which achieve self-interest of parties. As per these
ethical principles, actions should not focus on the happiness of a greater number of people;
instead, they should focus on personal benefits (Korbitz, 2014). This decision complies with
the ethical principles of egoism which provides that morality can be achieved through
selfishness.

6 | P a g e
What are the practical constraints of these alternatives?
Each of the alternative action discussed above has different practical constraints which are
faced by companies while taking these decisions. The first decision is changing the marketing
strategy of the company to avoid promoting skin fairness cream in a way that promotes
sexism and colourism. Fair & Lovely can change its marketing strategy to avoid degrading
women and girls and stop promoting deceitful advertisements. However, the key practical
constraint with this action is that it is difficult to promote skin fairness creams without
discriminate towards dark-skinned women (Murphy and Murphy, 2018). It will become
difficult for the company to market its products to a wider audience and give information
regarding changes in its products without relying on deceitful adverts. Moreover, people
might continue to hold Unilever liable for violating sustainable policies especially SDG Goal
5 for marketing skin lighting and whitening products (Unilever, 2019). This might also
reduce the sales of the company in major markets such as India and Thailand.
The practical constraints with the decision to completely discontinuing the skin fairness line
of the company are that Unilever and Fair & Lovely can face substantial loss. The
shareholders of the company might not support this decision since it will adversely affect the
future profits of Fair & Lovely. The skin-lightening industry is worth over $10 billion in 2015
in which Unilever holds a major market share through brands such as Dove and Fair &
Lovely (Shah, 2017). However, this decision will disrupt the marketing position of Unilever,
and it is likely to reduce its future profits might make it difficult for the company to sustain
its growth.
There are various physical constraints in the last alternative as well which is focused on self-
interest rather than the benefit of a large number of people. A recent survey found that 73
percent millennial customers prefer to pay higher prices for products which are sustainable in

7 | P a g e
nature (Curtin, 2018). It shows that if Unilever continues promoting deceitful advertisement,
then it might risk its sustainability in the industry. Moreover, it is illegal for companies to
promote deceitful advertisement as provided by the provisions of the Malaysian Code of
Advertising Practice 1977. Similarly, other countries such as India and Thailand might
impose stricter laws on deceitful advertisements which will make it difficult for Fair &
Lovely to rely on its marketing approach to sell its skin whitening products.
What action (s) would you suggest to Unilever to take?
Based on the above observations, it is recommended that Unilever should select the second
action and completely discontinue its skin lightening and whitening products. This is the most
ethical decision in this scenario which is based on the principles of Ethical Altruism.
However, this action is suggested for Unilever since it will also enable the company to
sustain its future growth while prioritising the interest of its stakeholders. The company
should discontinue skin lighting products and promoted women empowerment by offering
products that empower women rather than making them feels inferior (Chia et al., 2012). It
will assist Unilever in achieving Goal 5 of SDGs, and it will sustain the positive brand
reputation of the company in the global market. As the study conducted by Curtin (2018),
millennial customers prefer to pay a higher price for products which are ethically sourced and
sustainable based on which Unilever can charge higher prices for its products that empower
women. Thus, it will enable the company to ensure that it promotes the benefits of its
customers while maintaining its future profitability that will enable the company in sustaining
its future growth.

8 | P a g e
References
BBC. (2019) Chicago officer sentenced for murdering black teen Laquan McDonald.
[Online] Available at: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46928035 [Accessed
21/02/2019].
Chia, S.C., Ting Chay, Y., Kwan Cheong, P., Yin Cheong, W. and Kuan Lee, S. (2012) Fair
and lovely: building an integrated model to examine how peer influence mediates the effects
of skin-lightening advertisements on college women in Singapore. International Journal of
Advertising, 31(1), pp.189-211.
Crane, A. and Matten, D. (2016) Business ethics: Managing corporate citizenship and
sustainability in the age of globalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Curtin, M. (2018) 73 Percent of Millennials are Willing to Spend More Money on This 1 Type
of Product. [Online] Available at: https://www.inc.com/melanie-curtin/73-percent-of-
millennials-are-willing-to-spend-more-money-on-this-1-type-of-product.html [Accessed
21/02/2019].
Gantt, E.E. and Burton, J. (2013) Egoism, altruism, and the ethical foundations of
personhood. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 53(4), pp.438-460.
Gino, F., Ayal, S. and Ariely, D. (2013) Self-serving altruism? The lure of unethical actions
that benefit others. Journal of economic behavior & organization, 93, pp.285-292.
Iqbal, A., Danish, M.H. and Tahir, M.R. (2014) Exploitation of women in beauty products of
Fair and Lovely: A critical discourse analysis study. International Journal on Studies in
English Language and Literature, 2(9), pp.122-131.

9 | P a g e
Kalajtzidis, J. (2013) Ethics of social consequences as a contemporary consequentialist
theory. Ethics & Bioethics (in Central Europe), 3(3-4), pp.159-171.
Khan, S. and Khan, B.M. (2012) Brand power of fair & lovely (a case study on fair & lovely
fairness cream). Asia-Pacific Marketing Review, 1(2), pp.104-114.
Korbitz, A. (2014) The precautionary principle: Egoism, altruism, and the active SETI
debate. In Extraterrestrial Altruism (pp. 111-127). Berlin: Springer.
Mill, J.S. (2016) Utilitarianism. In Seven masterpieces of philosophy (pp. 337-383).
Abingdon: Routledge.
Mills, C.W. (2013) White supremacy as sociopolitical system: A philosophical perspective.
In White Out (pp. 42-55). Abingdon: Routledge.
Murphy, P.E. and Murphy, C.E. (2018) Sustainable Living: Unilever. In Progressive
Business Models (pp. 263-286). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Murray, J. (2018) How Unilever integrates the SDGs into corporate strategy. [Online]
Available at: https://www.greenbiz.com/article/how-unilever-integrates-sdgs-corporate-
strategy [Accessed 21/02/2019].
Nadeem, S. (2014) Fair and anxious: on mimicry and skin-lightening in India. Social
Identities, 20(2-3), pp.224-238.
Rachels, J. (2012) Ethical egoism. Ethical Theory: An Anthology, 14, p.193.
Shah, V. (2017) That Dove ad is not Unilever's biggest ethical dilemma. [Online] Available
at: https://www.businesslive.co.za/bd/opinion/2017-10-16-there-can-be-no-ethical-peace-for-
dove-after-ad/ [Accessed 21/02/2019].

10 | P a g e
Unilever. (2019) UN Sustainable Development Goals. [Online] Available at:
https://www.unilever.com/sustainable-living/our-strategy/un-sustainable-development-goals/
[Accessed 21/02/2019].