Most articles you read will have the personal opinion of the person writing it towards parent companies which let's be honest will often sway us to agree with them because when we talk about something we believe in we often are deep down trying to persuade others to at least try and think that way too. So for the sake of letting you have your own opinion I am going to place the 2 most common for and against arguements here. One of which I frimly believed in when I first went cruelty free and the one I prefer now.
So let's get started with the for arguement.
First and foremost parent companies are often referred to as just parents like their name. Just because they are now working with the brand doesn't mean they can 100% control them. Brands owned by parent companies will still not be sold in China, therefore their parent company isn't making any money from them there.
A way of seeing parent companies could be like a drugstore selling brands, for example Boots. Boots sells Barry M cosmetics which are cruelty free and I'm pretty sure are vegan too. Boots will make money from sales of Barry M which will go towards staff and also back into the business. Therefore, Boots could use the money made from a cruelty free brand such as Barry M to get hold of and sell non cruelty free brands such as maybelline and Rimmel. But do we avoid drugstores at all costs? Of course not.
Secondly, an arguement also brought up by youtuber Sarah Hawkinson ( who is awesome btw) is that buying a cruelty free brand owned by a parent company such as Urban Decay who are owned by L'oreal tells the brand that their cruelty free children are more popular. Therefore, more of the money they make from Urban Decay will be put straight back into Urban Decay and it will be just like the parent was never there.
Okay now for against.
Firstly, to build on what I said about how much control parent companies have. We don't know just how much control they have, so they could have way more control over the cruelty free children than we would like to think they have. They could be using their commercials to hide subliminal messages, using the brands to promote themself whilst hiding under then cruelty free blanket. I may sound a bit like Fox Mulder here but subliminal messages are very very common.
Secondly, why buy from them anyway? This is an arguement I like to use against non crulety free companies. There are so many options out there and is it not better to be 100% comfortable about what was done to make your eyeshadows or mascara? Why buy from them when there are so many other options out there?
An arguement raised by a youtuber Kiera Rose, also awesome ( which I have never heard before) is that when she thinks of cruelty free companies owned by parent companies she pictures a row of market stalls and at one stall when you buy something the guy punches a puppy. Now you could buy from one of the other stalls, but he owns them all. So when you go to another stall where you can't see him and buy something that guy then goes straight to him with the money and he punches another puppy. But you don't see it this time. You can say you didn't know it was going to happen, or you're not giving the money directly to him so it's not your fault. But is it really not?
So to conclude.
Here you have 2 arguements that show for and against and they are on the same page so you have them together for comparison.
Just to let you know i used to buy via companies owned by parent companies but now i don't. I don't have an issue with people who do ( like I said I love Sarah).
But it's personal opinion. Please remember that.
Share This Article
