Humanities and Social Sciences

2020; 8(4): 112-116

http://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/j/hss
doi: 10.11648/j.hss.20200804.12
ISSN: 2330-8176 (Print); ISSN: 2330-8184 (Online)

The Ethical Issues of Animal Testing in Cosmetics Industry

Yue Wang1, 2, Yuan Zhao1, *, Fuhui Song3, *
1
School of Education, Soochow University, Suzhou, China
2
School of Business, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia
3
Student Affairs Office, Shan Dong College of Electronic Technology, Jinan, China

Email address:
*
Corresponding author

To cite this article:

Yue Wang, Yuan Zhao, Fuhui Song. The Ethical Issues of Animal Testing in Cosmetics Industry. Humanities and Social Sciences.
Vol. 8, No. 4, 2020, pp. 112-116. doi: 10.11648/j.hss.20200804.12

Received: July 15, 2020; Accepted: July 27, 2020; Published: July 30, 2020

Abstract: Animal testing in the cosmetics industry have always been a controversial topic, which plays a vital role in the
development and safety of cosmetics, but at the same time it seriously violates the survival rights of experimental animals. This
study is a dialectical analysis of the business theme from two very different perspectives of thought: Utilitarian and Kantian.
Utilitarianism advocates the pursuit of maximum happiness. Happiness involves not only those involved in the act but also
everyone affected by it. Animals experimented in the cosmetics industry suffered great pain and did not get happiness, which
means that the cosmetics industry goes against the morality of utilitarianism. Therefore, animal experiments conducted by the
cosmetics industry are unethical. Kantian is very different from the utilitarianism in that Kantian believes that whatever the
outcome, at least some actions are right or wrong. In this case, animal testing is justified in the cosmetics industry, mainly
because it helps protect consumers of these products from the unknown consequences of their use. From a Kantian point of
view, animal testing in the cosmetics industry is moral and beneficial. Based on the above two arguments, it is concluded that
animal experiment is an indispensable link in the cosmetics industry. At the same time, relevant practitioners should respect
the survival rights of experimental animals and conduct animal experiments with scientific and humane procedures to
minimize the harm to experimental animals.

Keywords: Animal Testing, Utilitarian, Kantian, Cosmetic, Fair Trade

suffer?” However, while most of these arguments seem

1. Introduction persuasive and may even prevent companies from
California became the first U.S. state to ban animal testing experimenting on animals, new arguments have emerged on
in the cosmetics industry. News of the ban came earlier this similar issues in the 21st century. The argument as to whether
month, after the California State Assembly passed Bill SB animal testing should be permitted for cosmetic products is
1249. The bill was passed by an 80 – 0 unanimous vote [1], argued from both the Utilitarian and Kantian perspectives. In
therefore, declaring the use of animals testing in the cosmetic order to get contradicting views and provide critical
industry illegal. However, these remains are relatively argument on both proposing and opposing sides, this paper
controversial subject. A research conducted by Davis [2] on considered the Kantian maxim “protects the human race”, a
the “hidden costs of sexier lipstick”, the author noted that the concept which has been largely implemented in the cosmetic
use of animals in scientific experiments long been forbidden industry.
by animal rights activists, especially considering that most The Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act has largely
animal experiments are simply for the benefit of the human prohibited the sale adulterated and mislabeled cosmetics, but
race. Davis [2] bases his argument on David Hume’s notion fails to consider whether animal tests should be conducted to
of animals being “endowed with thought and reason as well ensure the safety of cosmetics to human beings [3]. In
as men” and Jeremy Bentham’s notion that the “the question countries such as China, the government requires all
is not, can they reason? Or can they talk? But can they cosmetic products that have been imported into the country
113 Yue Wang et al.: The Ethical Issues of Animal Testing in Cosmetics Industry

to be tested on animals. China is also known to test other 1.2. Kantian Perspective (Protect the Human Race)
products that have been shelved on their supermarkets on
animals to ensure their safety. Both the Federal Food, Drug Kantian perspective, which originates from the theory of
and Cosmetic Act and the Chinese government present a Emmanuel Kant, departs significantly from utilitarianism [7].
rather contradicting position when it comes to the use of Kantian theory has been dubbed as a deontological theory
animals in the cosmetic industry. The controversy, however, because it based on the belief that some features more than or
becomes much clearer when viewing this argument from two in addition to consequences make an action obligatory.
broad philosophical concepts: Utilitarian and Kantian. Kantians are of the view that the wrongness or rightness of
“at least some actions can be determined no matter what the
1.1. Utilitarian Perspective consequences are” [5]. Kantians, therefore, if using animals
in the cosmetic industry to test products is morally wrong,
Utilitarianism has emerged as perhaps one of the widely then it is “categorically wrong” and the action will not be
learned and most influential ethical theories. Just like other right even if a significant number of people are deprived of
consequentialism theories, the core idea behind utilitarianism the economic or great pleasure of benefiting from this action
is the effect of an action [4]. Advocates of utilitarian theory [7]. Kantian theory does not regard utility and self-interest as
believe that the final results will determine the effect on an primary aspects.
action. If the end results are good, the action will be regarded Advocates of this theory are more concerned about the
as something that is good. However, if the end results are agent’s actions moral worth, which are largely dependent on
bad, then then action is also regarded as bad. Based on the moral acceptability of the rule the person is acting. An
important philosophers such Jeremy Bentham and John action, in this perspective, will be considered to be ethical
Stuart Mills, utilitarian theory regards the purpose of only when it is performed by an agent that possesses good
morality as something which helps make life better by will [8]. A person, on the other hand, is perceived as having
increasing good things like happiness and pleasure and good will if the moral obligations of his/her actions based on
decreasing bad things such as unhappiness and pain [4]. rule that is universally valid, is the action’s sole motive. In
Utilitarian are of the idea that true morality is based on its this case, therefore, if testing of animals for cosmetic
contribution to both human and non-human beings. products is regarded as moral and universally valid, then
A clear argument of how animal testing contradicts with Kantians will regard it a moral action. Similarly, if the action
the utilitarian perspective has been provided by Orlans et al. is based on good will, then the action will be considered
[5]. Bentham clearly noted that lack of the traits making for moral. This arguably led to the establishment of the maxim
human personhood does not imply lack of moral standing or “protect the human race” which arguably contradicts with the
status, mainly because the capacity to pain is itself sufficient notion of utilitarian. While Bentham considering the need to
for conferring at least some sufficient moral standing [4]. put animals at the basis of his argument, Kant’s based his
Bentham’s argument is grounded to animals themselves, and argument on human beings and used both categorical
not their owners. The philosopher clearly notes that human imperative and moral law to make his claims.
beings have duties to animals not to cause them suffering and One of the most memorable quotes made by Kant is
pain [4]. Bentham and clearly noted that human race duties to “unlike objects and animals, humans are never to be used
animals are independent of any of the duties they have to the merely as a means to another’s ends” [5]. On the contrary,
owners of the animals. Kant considered animals as “human instruments” and should
Bentham’s claims have enjoyed plausibility in today’s be regarded as so. This means that animals can be used as
business world, especially with animal rights activists. means to an end. In regards to this perspective, animals are
Animal activists do not consider moral claims regarding viewed by Kantians as having instrumental or reduced value
animals as anything to do with the obligations of their owners mainly because their status is only subhuman animals [9].
or with the intelligence, personality and self-consciousness of This clearly indicates that animals should only be value
animals. It is rather aspects such as suffering, pain and the exclusively or in regards to how valuable they are to human
overall welfare of the animals, and not self-awareness or beings. Kantians will, therefore, argue that animals are
rationality that provides many human rights activists the valuable to the cosmetic industry because they help
reasons to fight and prohibit the use of animals in chemical determine the safety of products before they are unleashed to
and biochemical tests, for instance, the use of rabbits in the the market. Kantians are also of the view that human beings
cosmetic industry and raising of chicken for the market [4]. are not directly but indirectly obligated to animals. Killing of
An investigation conducted by 2 Australian sociologists on animals that have failed to perform their duties in cosmetic
the attitude of 302 undergraduate students to various use of product tests does not fail cosmetic companies in their duties
animals helped prove the extent to which utilitarianism is to the animals, because the animals have no ability to judge
influencing the minds of consumers in today’s business [9]. However such an action will be considered inhuman and
industry [6]. Results obtained from the study show strong damaging to humanity, which is the man’s duty towards
(87% of respondents) and moderate (75% of respondents) mankind. Being cruel to animals, according to Kantians will
disapproval of cosmetic tests, such as eye irritancy on mice, make a person cruel to other people, but not because this
monkeys and dogs [6]. Painful tests should not be applied in action violates human obligation to animals.
nonmedical experiments that involved the use of animals.
 Humanities and Social Sciences 2020; 8(4): 112-116 114

2. Business Argument the environment or entities in it. While fair trade is most
associated with the food and clothing industry, it is slowly
Understanding both Utilitarian and Kantian perspectives in taking its place in the cosmetic industry, according to
terms of how they are implemented in the business world is Armstrong [15]. The Fair Trade Labeling Organization
very important. An important concept to note is that, the (FLO) and other certification systems have established
cosmetic industry, which is largely dominated by only a few standards which must be followed by all cosmetic companies
multinational companies that emerged in the 20th century, is before they products can be regarded as ethically developed
affected by both utilitarian and Kantian perspectives. [15]. A research conducted in Australia by Human Research
2.1. Employing Utilitarian Theory in the Cosmetic Industry Australia [16] has identified the “Be Cruel-Free Australia”
campaign, which has partnered with Human Society
2.1.1. The Ethical Consumer International and Human Research Australia as one way in
European Union (EU) has already introduced a ban on which cosmetics companies in the country are forced to stop
animals being used to test cosmetic products such as shampoo, testing their products on animals. Companies which follow
toothpaste and women make-up [10]. Despite EU’s efforts, standards developed by these organizations and help promote
animals continue being used to test cosmetic products. This the Be Cruel-Free Campaign are provided with a fair trade
has given rise to ethical consumers who are arguably mark, which notifies consumers that the brand does not test
distancing themselves from product that have been tested on its products on animals.
animals. Ethical consumers, according to Sheehan and Lee Peter Singer, a Utilitarian philosopher provides a clear
[11], are trying to bridge the gap their morals and practices by argument which shows why cosmetic companies ought to
practicing that has been termed as ethical consumption. This embrace fair trade. The philosopher considered companies
means that ethical consumers will only purchase products and such as Marks & Spencer, which converted their entire
use services that have been produced in an ethical way. company to producing fair trade products, arguing that this
Arguments presented by ethical consumers are based on change helped increase the amount of revenues the
utilitarian theory, and consider the need for products being companies acquire in their relative markets. Singer [17]
produced by most of today’s companies to consider all aspects consider the need for cosmetic companies to follow the
that have been deemed immoral or unethical in business. ethical practices of companies operating the clothing and
An important ethical consumption argument presented by food industries in order to attract many customers. Products
Brennan [12] considers how ethical a woman’s makeup bag that are marked with fair trade symbols are well recognized
is. Brennan [12] argues that while most cosmetic brands have by consumers in today’s business world who are slowly
rated their products as being free from chemicals that harm becoming concerned about the wellbeing of the environment.
the environment, and perhaps have not been tested on The rationality behind developing fair trade cosmetics is that
animals, there are very high chances that these brands might consumers are will be willing to pay more for these products
be lying. The author, however, noted that the need to declare because they reflect priorities that are ethical [17].
cosmetic products as fitting for the environment and have not
been tested from animals is to attract ethical consumers. In 2.2. Employing Kantian Theory in the Cosmetic Industry
areas such as North America and Europe, ethical While most Utilitarian arguments in the business
consumerism is attracting the attention of many companies environment are based on business practices that are ethical
[13]. The concept has become very popular, with many not only to human being, but also to animals, there are
cosmetic brands adopting labels, which identifies will with reservations which are mostly associated with advocates of
ethical consumerism. Ethical consumerism also helps Kantian theory. When considering animal testing in the
promote corporate social responsibility (CSR) of companies cosmetic industry, Kantians are mostly concerned with what
considering the fact that it forces companies to adopt the duty of the companies producing these products is.
business activities that are ethical. The concept of CSR is Categorical imperative was identified by Kant as a concept
well aligned with utilitarianism because it requires people need to consider when conducting business activities.
companies to take care of the environments they are Kant noted that human needs categorical imperatives of
operating in. Idowu et al. [14] argue that since CSR demands morality for reasoning [18]. In a study to investigate how
considering the interests of stakeholders, utilitarian organizations implemented categorical imperative in their
rationality seems coherent with social responsibility of business activities, Agbude et al. [19] noted that companies
corporations. This involves considering stakeholder’s are not charitable or philanthropic institutions. Companies
interests which in the cosmetic industry is to refrain from should be regarded as tools or grounds that have been
using animals to test cosmetic products. organized to serve a specific purpose which cannot be
2.1.2. The Case of Fair Trade overemphasized or disregarded without harming individuals
Consumers are slowly beginning to consumer products, or the society [19]. This means that, while companies are
which are associated with some form of fair trade developed to serve the good of mankind, the reserve is likely
organization. This involves products which bare marks that to be the case if business is not properly regulated by moral
shows they have been sources and traded without the harm of and legal laws. It is also imperative to consider the fact that,
Kantians consider the highest good as the good will. In most
115 Yue Wang et al.: The Ethical Issues of Animal Testing in Cosmetics Industry

cases, good will for companies is to increase their profits, pay the objection and the argument for this argument are based
employees well and take care of consumer needs. on two crucial theoretical areas. On the one hand, the
Categorical Imperative argument has become relevant in scientific nature of animal experiments and the benefits they
business practices to a point that it is being used to identify bring to human health cannot be denied; on the other hand,
loopholes in a capitalist economy to other welfare detriment the negative effects brought by animal experiments should
[19]. This concept is also operating within ethics purview in also be paid attention to. Opponents of this view are based on
order to enhance the happiness of stakeholders, business the utilitarian theory, which takes into account the
executives and even the consumers whose survival is based on fundamental rights of animals and promotes the well-being of
the existence of the company. According to Kant, human being all concerned. As living individuals, animals should enjoy
struggle when it comes to considering something as being freedom and the right to live. It is inevitable that the animals
ethical or moral because they are not being purely rational [20]. in cosmetics experiment will suffer physical and
The nature of human beings is mostly affected by passion, psychological damage during the experiment. Then animal
sentiments, emotions and inclinations. Reason, on the other experiments should follow the scientific procedures, give
hand, seems to intervene by informing man what need to be experimental animals the welfare treatment they deserve, and
done. The moral law in that regard is associated with practical minimize the harm to them, instead of abusing and abusing
reasoning [21]. Kant also noted that only rational beings are animals. Proponents of utilitarianism advocate moral
capable of acting in accordance with the outset of laws [21]. consumerism, corporate social responsibility, fair trade and
In regards to the cosmetic industry, Kantians are likely to other aspects of development to strengthen ethical business
argue that the good will of the company is acquiring significant practices. Supporters of this argument base their argument on
amounts of profits, but not at the expense of the company’s Kant's theory, their argument on reasoning. The idea, they
stakeholders, competitors, workers and consumers. Testing of argue, is to reinforce the good will of companies that can
cosmetic products on animals is not regarded as an immoral or generate profits without harming consumers, stakeholders
unethical business practice but rather a rational one. This is and employees. In this case, animals are seen as entities,
especially considering the fact that Kantians identify animals created to play a role in human society. Therefore, animal
as “subhuman”, and also the fact that human beings have no experiments in the cosmetics industry should be viewed
direct duty towards animals. In regards to Kantian ethics, dialectically and scientifically, not only to see the benefits
testing cosmetic products on animals is rational because brought by animal experiments to stakeholders, but also to
companies ought to consider the safety of their products before consider the rights they should enjoy as living beings. With
they can make them available to their consumers. Safer the development of human civilization and the increasing
products help maintain the company’s the company’s demand for cosmetics, animal experiments in the cosmetics
reputation towards its customers. While concepts such as fair industry cannot be cancelled. Therefore, the protection of the
trade and ethical consumers are concerned about the wellbeing rights of experimental animals and the welfare of
of animals, Kantians consider animals as species, which were experimental animals should be paid more attention to.
created to help human beings in their endeavors.
Williams [22] supports this claim by arguing that testing of
cosmetic products on animals benefit consumers of these References
products because it shows the contribution that animals have
made in the production of these products. It is also [1] McGettigan, G. (2018). California becomes first US state to
ban animal testing in the cosmetics industry | IMAGE.ie.
imperative to consider the fact that animals have always Retrieved from https://www.image.ie/beauty/california-ban-
being used in scientific tests, something which has since been cosmetic-testing-animals-127412
regarded as universal law. Even though, the use of animals to
test cosmetic products has not been declared universally as a [2] Davies, K. C. (2011). The Hidden Costs of Sexier Lipstick:
Animal Testing in the Cosmetic Industry. International Journal
law, countries such as China have this claim possible. This of Cosmetic Science, 33 (3), 245-250. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-
means that, most cosmetic companies operating in China will 2494.2010.00621.x
consider experimenting on animals a practice which is
morally correct because the government is also doing it. The [3] Humanesociety.org. (2018). Fact Sheet: Cosmetic Testing:
The Humane Society of the United States. Retrieved from
cosmetic industry seems to consider this law and, therefore, http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/cosmetic_testing/qa/que
does not see anything unethical when it comes to companies stions_answers.html
testing their cosmetic products on animals. In most
companies’ perspective, the practice is rational because other [4] Sheng, C. L. (2012). A New Approach to Utilitarianism: A
Unified Utilitarian Theory and Its Application to Distributive
companies are also practicing it, and there is no universal law Justice. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
that states otherwise.
[5] Orlans, F. B., Beauchamp, T. L., Dresser, R. S., Gluck, J. P., &
Morton, D. B. (2011). The human use of animals: Case studies
3. Conclusion in ethical choice. New York: Oxford University Press.
There are no winners in the debate over whether cosmetics [6] Estrin, N. F. (2011). The Cosmetic industry: Scientific and
should be tested on animals. Especially considering that both regulatory foundations. New York, NY: M. Dekker.
 Humanities and Social Sciences 2020; 8(4): 112-116 116

[7] Wright, R. (2015). The moral animal: Evolutionary Relatively Slow Uptake. Retrieved from
psychology and everyday life. London: Abacus. https://www.cosmeticsdesign-
europe.com/Article/2010/04/13/Fairtrade-in-the-cosmetics-
[8] Foex A. (2007). The Ethics of Animal Experimentation. doi: industry-a-relatively-slow-uptake
10.1093/0195181794.001.0001.
[16] Human Research Australia. (2018). Be Cruelty-Free Australia:
[9] Liguori, G. R., Jeronimus, B. F., De Aquinas Liguori, T. T., Ending Cosmetics Animal Testing. Author.
Moreira, L. F., &Harmsen, M. C. (2017). Ethical Issues in the
Use of Animal Models for Tissue Engineering: Reflections on [17] Singer, P. (2006). Why Pay More for Fairness? by Peter
Legal Aspects, Moral Theory, Three Rs Strategies, and Harm– Singer. Retrieved from
Benefit Analysis. Tissue Engineering Part C: Methods, 23 https://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/200604--.htm
(12), 850-862. doi: 10.1089/ten.tec.2017.0189.
[18] Bowie, N. E. (2002). A Kantian Approach to Business Ethics.
[10] Thew, M. (2017). Animal Testing in the Cosmetics Industry | A Companion to Business Ethics, 3-16. doi:
Ethical Consumer. Retrieved from 10.1002/9780470998397.ch1.
https://www.ethicalconsumer.org/health-beauty/animal-
testing-cosmetics-industry [19] Renouard, C. (2010). Corporate Social Responsibility,
Utilitarianism, and the Capabilities Approach. Journal of
[11] Sheehan, K. B., & Lee, J. (2014). What's Cruel About Cruelty Business Ethics, 98 (1), 85-97. doi: 10.1007/s10551-010-
Free: An Exploration of Consumers, Moral Heuristics, and 0536-8.
Public Policy. Journal of Animal Ethics, 4 (2), 1. doi:
10.5406/janimalethics.4.2.0001 [20] Paixão, R. L., & Schramm, F. R. (2011). Ethics and animal
experimentation: what is debated? Cadernos de SaúdePública,
[12] Brennan, S. (2017). How ethical is YOUR make-up bag? 15 (suppl 1), S99-S110. doi: 10.1590/s0102-
Retrieved from https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article- 311x1999000500011.
4471134/How-ethical-make-bag.html
[21] Agbude, G. A., Ogunwede, J. K., Godwyns-Agbude, J.,
[13] Carrier, J. G., Luetchford, P., &Luetchford, P. (2012). Ethical Wogu, I. P., &Nchekwube, E. (2015). Kant’s Categorical
Consumption: Social Value and Economic Practice. Imperative and the “Business” of Profit Maximization: The
Quest for Service Paradigm. Technology and Investment, 06
[14] Idowu, S. O., Frederiksen, C. S., Mermod, A. Y., & Nielsen, (01), 1-11. doi: 10.4236/ti.2015.61001.
M. E. (2014). Corporate Social Responsibility and
Governance [recursoelectrónico]: Theory and Practice. [22] Williams, C. (2018). Opinion: Label Drugs That Are Tested
(Springer eBooks 2015 [recursoelectrónico].) Cham. on Animals. Retrieved from https://www.the-
scientist.com/opinion/opinion-label-drugs-that-are-tested-on-
[15] Armstrong, L. (2010). Fairtrade in the Cosmetics Industry: a animals-30410