• Zoolander@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    I think this is misrepresenting what he said. His stance is basically that he felt like they were punishing honest workers and business partners, people who never lied or cheated or hurt anyone, for something that they had no part in due to public pressure. He’s not wrong either unless people have some kind of explanation for how a cosmetics manufacturer is supposed to stop Putin from murdering innocent Ukrainians fighting against his pointless war and innocent Russians who don’t want to fight for him.

  • originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    54
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    why would he say the quiet part out loud? how would this not make him seem like a piece of shit?

    i tried to read in the article where he might say something about why but it really is just ‘profits at all costs’… wants to avoid the use of words like ‘ethical’… gotcha. i understand what kind of person you are now.

    • hh93@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      And some people still say that the customers are helpless and calling for boycott doesn’t work…

      If people would demand other industries to be more in line with their moral values (like about climate change) that could also change a lot

  • MushuChupacabra@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    That’s good to know. Since Lush doesn’t seem to sell their stuff in other retail locations, it will be much easier to never buy Lush products again.

    • BirdyBoogleBop@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Atleast he isn’t lying. Every other company is waiting for the right time to go back why shouldn’t he? I am under no illusion that all businesses that left Russia did it because of the goodness of their hearts.

      Are you going to boycott all the other business that left too?

    • Zoolander@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Sanctions are typically the acts of a government state not the actions of a business. Businesses have to comply with them but only if they’re bound by them. That wasn’t the case here. Lush did this based on public outcry, not sanctions.

  • Quokka@quokk.au
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    A cosmetics manufacturer alone? No.

    All western companies leaving however can make an economic hit that will benefit Ukraine.

    As for the Russians? They can revolt or do something, otherwise they suffer. Who cares about them.

    • tb_@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      If you actually read the article it doesn’t seem to be about the money:

      Mr Constantine said: “It was horrible. I hated it because we have a very diverse workforce and lots of people who probably wouldn’t be welcome in Russia.

      “We had a partner of 20 years in Russia who never cheated, never lied, and we had to tell him we weren’t going to supply him anymore.

      (The Telegraph doesn’t close some of their “quotes” for some reason)

  • shneancy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    lmao for a minute i thought the public was deeply invested in the remote control vibrator Lush by Lovense

    • Zoolander@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Why are you commenting this to me? I’m the one that pointed out that the parent’s interpretation of the story was wrong in the first place.