ALEX LAZAR
Nevertheless, not every individual extends these values to encompass all living things. Critics of the animal rights movement hold the opinion that, because animals lack cognizance and sense perception, they are not entitled to moral rights. Unfortunately for these opponents, the basis of their arguments is losing credibility as scientific evidence increasingly indicates that animals possess higher mental abilities than previously believed. It is important to recognize that these scientific results automatically present new questions to society regarding its responsibility to animals. “It is one thing to treat animals as mere resources, presumed to be little more than living robots, but it is entirely different if they are recognized as fellow sentient beings.”2 Accepting the idea that animals can feel and think requires society to acknowledge the ways in which it inflicts pain and suffering on living creatures. In his 1789 publication, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, Jeremy Bentham effectively illuminates the rationale that should incite people to promote animal rights. He states, “The question is not, Can they reason? Nor, Can tshey talk? But, Can they suffer?”3 Although the prevention of suffering is the social principle advocated by animal rights groups, the desire for change is not enough to succeed. These organizations must also understand the best ways in which social change can be implemented, a task that requires identifying the societal institutions that have the greatest potential of bringing the social issue to the forefront. This leads to an important question to be considered. Who has often been the target of criticism by animal rights organizations? Whether it has been animal rights groups’ denunciation of Yum Brands, Johnson & Johnson, Merck & Co., or L’Oreal, it is difficult to deny that corporations are the ones that most often receive disapproval from the animal rights movement. Although the censure faced by these corporations is not unwarranted, the exorbitant amount of attention placed on them
reflects business’s role as a predominant social institution. Considering the significant influence that corporations exert on society, it should come as no surprise that managers today are obligated to “take stands on social issues that their predecessors would have ignored.”4 Whether or not corporations are willing to admit it, they are now held accountable for the effects they have on society and are expected to engage in corporate social responsibility (CSR). In fact, one might suspect that the concept of CSR has made it easier for animal rights groups to voice their concerns to major corporations, and has obliged these corporations to listen. A primary concern of animal rights organizations regards the cruel circumstances that animals are subjected to in research laboratories. With the emergence of alternative methods to animal testing, there has been increasing suspicion over the necessity of experimenting on animals to test the safety of cosmetics. Although government regulations demand animal testing to prove the safety of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does not impose these requirements on companies that manufacture cosmetics.5 It appears that companies that produce cosmetics enjoy flexibility in evaluating the safety of their products; therefore, these companies should exert the effort to employ existing non-animal methods. One such company is Procter & Gamble Co., the American manufacturing corporation that owns CoverGirl Cosmetics and Max Factor & Company. Despite maintaining that it has “eliminated animal testing for about 80% of [its] products around the world,” P&G’s cosmetic companies remain the targets of criticism for relying on animal testing.6 Although 80% appears to be a high number, there is no reason why P&G cannot eradicate animal testing by 100%. This is not necessarily an inconceivable task, considering that Revlon and Avon are two cosmetic companies that have succeeded in abolishing animal experiments completely. Tak-
ing into consideration future expectations, specifically the increasing recognition of animal rights and the upcoming European ban on animal testing of cosmetics, it appears that eliminating all animal testing is in the best interest of P&G. P&G would have a significant chance at completing this arduous, yet feasible task by adopting a corporate social action proposal. This specific proposal calls on P&G to (1) develop a partnership with MatTek Corporation, (2) seek guidance from the Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing, and (3) lobby the FDA to reduce its emphasis on animal testing. One way in which P&G might facilitate its transition to only non-animal methods is through a partnership with MatTek Corporation, a company involved with tissue engineering. In order to understand the profound implications of such a partnership, one must understand certain future expectations regarding the cosmetics industry. Many cosmetic companies have been developing alternative testing procedures in anticipation of a European Union ban, “which covered seven specific tests as of March 2009.”7 In 2013, the addition of eight more test signals a deadline for all animal testing on cosmetics.8 If P&G’s cosmetic lines, such as CoverGirl and Max Factor, aspire to make a profit internationally, then they will have to abide by the “rules that apply to any company wishing to sell in the 27-nation European Union.”9 Nevertheless, adhering to current rules is not enough. Companies are now involved in a race to prove themselves as leaders in discovering alternative testing methods. For instance, P&G’s major competitor, L’Oreal, has fortified its position as a key player “in the fast evolving reconstructed skin testing arena,” by purchasing the company SkinEthic, “a worldwide player in the production and commercialization of human epidermal tissues.”10 With the ability to use human tissue instead of live animals, L’Oreal enjoys access to testing methods that comply with the European ban. In addition, SkinEthic
17