A Report on

HUL’s “Fair & Lovely” Advertising Case

In partial fulfilment of the requirements for the course of

Ethical Issues in Management
In
MBA- Business Analytics (2023-2025)

Submitted by
Yash Shah
Roll No: A061
SAP ID: 80672300075

Submitted to
Prof. Abhay Bhat
12/10/2023
1
Introduction
Deceptive marketing poses an ethical dilemma as it involves the use of misleading or false
information to promote products or services. It raises questions about honesty, consumer trust,
and corporate responsibility, highlighting the need for ethical marketing practices to maintain
transparency and fairness in the marketplace.

Context and Facts of the Issue

This case study discusses the marketing and selling of fairness skin products, particularly the
branded fairness cream “Fair & Lovely”. The Hindustan Unilever Limited’s (HUL) “Fair &
Lovely” is the top-selling skin cream of India, where 60 to 65 percent of Indian women use
fairness creams daily.1
The "Fair & Lovely" case had represented a complex and multifaceted issue that had sparked
considerable public debate and prompted changes in the beauty and cosmetics industry. This
case centered on the branding and marketing of a skin-lightening cream, "Fair & Lovely,"
which had been a prominent product in India for decades. This exploration about the case will
provide comprehensive context, examine public reactions, discuss HUL's response, and
address the broader societal impact of the "Fair & Lovely" controversy.
To fully understand the "Fair & Lovely" case, one must consider the deep-rooted historical
context of colourism, colonial legacies, and societal beauty standards in India. The preference
for fair or lighter skin has a long history in India, with colonial influences playing a substantial
role in shaping these perceptions. During the colonial era, British colonial rulers promoted the
idea that fair skin was superior, contributing to a perception that associated fair skin with power,
privilege, and beauty. This colonial legacy has left an eternal impact on India's beauty
standards, with fairness often considered more desirable.
This resulted, skin-lightening and fairness products to become prominent in India's beauty and
cosmetics industry. Brands like "Fair & Lovely" emerged to cater to the demand for lighter
skin, marketing these products as the means to achieve beauty and success.
Indians often marry within their caste, thus those with lighter skin colour may be more likely
to marry someone from a higher caste. HUL’s Fair & Lovely has exploited these cultural norms
to promote their products through controversial advertising. The brand created advertisements
that explicitly promoted the idea that darker skinned women are less attractive, less likely to
have boyfriends and find husbands, and thus more unhappy.
Over time, "Fair & Lovely" established itself as a market leader, promising consumers the
appeal of fairer skin. However, as global conversations on race, colourism, and beauty
standards evolved, the brand and its product came under scrutiny for perpetuating biases and
reinforcing societal expectations related to skin colour.

Rebranding Effort:
With the rise of Black Lives Matter (BLM) by the death of George Floyd and the worldwide
debate about racism it sparked, people on social media were furious and calling out cosmetics
brands for catering a bias based on skin colour. In response to the increasing criticism and
changing societal expectations, HUL announced in June 2020 that it would be rebranding "Fair

1
Studco - https://www.studocu.com/en-us/document/university-of-massachusetts-amherst/marketing-
management/660-fair-and-lovely-case/22215932

2
& Lovely." The decision to remove the word "Fair" from the product's name, resulting in "Glow
& Lovely," marked a significant shift in approach. The rebranding aimed to reflect a more
diverse and inclusive vision of beauty and to address the concerns related to colourism.2

HUL's Response and the Rebranding:

HUL's response to the "Fair & Lovely" controversy was a significant step in acknowledging
the concerns and sensitivities surrounding the product. The decision to rebrand "Fair & Lovely"
and remove the word "Fair" from the product's name was a clear recognition of the need for
change. The company announced that the new brand name would be "Glow & Lovely,"
emphasizing the idea of promoting healthy and glowing skin. HUL also stated its commitment
to promoting a more inclusive and positive beauty narrative. The company recognized the need
to evolve and adapt to changing societal expectations and values.3

Public Reactions:
Public reactions to the "Fair & Lovely" controversy were mixed, reflecting the complexity of
the issue. While many individuals and advocacy groups welcomed HUL's decision to rebrand
the product, others argued that the company's action was insufficient and that the entire concept
of fairness creams needed to be challenged.
Advocates for body positivity and diversity praised the move as a step in the right direction,
highlighting the importance of promoting self-acceptance and challenging long-standing
beauty standards that prioritize fairness. Critics, however, expressed reservations about the
rebranding, countering that it did not go far enough in addressing the root issues associated
with fairness products and colourism.

Critical Perspective

Key Unethical Issues Identified

•Promotion of Colourism: At the core of the "Fair & Lovely" controversy was the issue of
colourism. The product's branding and marketing messages suggested that fair skin was
synonymous with beauty, success, and desirability. The name itself, "Fair & Lovely," implied
that fairness was the measure of one's attractiveness and social standing. This connection
between fairness and beauty was profoundly problematic, as it maintained the notion that
lighter skin was more desirable.
•Societal Pressure: The message of "Fair & Lovely" had a deep impact on societal norms and
individuals, particularly women. The constant exposure to advertising that linked fairness to
success and happiness created social pressure for women to follow to these pseudo ideals. This
had implications for self-esteem, body image, and mental health, as individuals with darker
skin tones often felt belittle or less desirable because they did not conform to these beauty
standards.
•Consumer Trust: Deceptive marketing raises ethical concerns about consumer trust.
Consumers trust that the products they purchase will deliver the promised benefits. When

2
BBC - https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-53182169
3
The Guardian - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/25/unilever-rename-fair-and-lovely-skin-
lightening-cream-inclusive-beauty

3
marketing conveys unrealistic or misleading claims, it erodes this trust, creating an ethical
dilemma for companies.
•Criticism and Public Outcry: The "Fair & Lovely" brand began facing growing criticism
and public outcry, particularly in the context of global discussions on race, diversity, and body
positivity. Advocacy groups, social activists, and individuals voiced their concerns about the
product's influence on societal norms and the harm it could cause, especially to the self-esteem
of those with darker skin.
•International Perspective: The issue extended beyond India's borders. There was a growing
awareness of the harmful implications of products that perpetuated colourism and racial biases.
This awareness aligned with the global movement against such products and the shift toward
promoting diverse and inclusive beauty standards.

HUL's decision to rebrand "Fair & Lovely" demonstrated a recognition of the ethical dilemmas
faced by the product. While the rebranding was seen as a step towards inclusivity, it also raised
questions about the seriousness of such changes and the need for a more comprehensive ethical
remodelling.

Impact on various Stakeholders

•Consumers: Consumers, especially women, were significantly affected. The promotion of
fairness as a beauty standard had a detrimental impact on self-esteem, creating feelings of
inadequacy among those with darker skin tones. The rebranding to "Glow & Lovely" aimed to
address these concerns, signalling a more inclusive approach.
•Advocacy Groups: Advocacy groups played a crucial role in raising awareness about the
ethical issues surrounding "Fair & Lovely." Their efforts pushed for a change in marketing
practices and called for a more inclusive and diverse beauty narrative.
•HUL: Hindustan Unilever Limited had to navigate a complex ethical situation. The company
faced public scrutiny and had to make challenging decisions regarding rebranding and
marketing practices. The case prompted introspection and the need to align business strategies
with evolving societal values.
•Regulatory Bodies: Regulatory authorities played a role in overseeing and regulating
advertising standards. The "Fair & Lovely" case brought attention to the need for stricter
regulations to tackle deceptive marketing practices in the cosmetics industry.
•Society at Large: The case triggered broader discussions on societal values and perceptions
of beauty. It contributed to the global conversation on diversity and inclusion, highlighting the
need to challenge the set beauty standards.
•Competitors: The case impacted the whole cosmetics industry by setting new expectations
for responsible marketing. Competing companies needed to re-evaluate their own product
offerings and advertising practices considering changing consumer preferences and ethical
considerations.

Ideal way to manage situation

If I was in place of HUL, I would have handled the backlash in the following manner:
•I would have taken the first step of promptly acknowledged the ethical concerns surrounding
"Fair & Lovely” to show a commitment to addressing the issue.

4
•Initiate a transparent and open conversation with consumers, advocacy groups, and
stakeholders. This would involve actively listening to their concerns around the name and
seeking feedback on how the product could be improved to align with changing societal values.
•Conduct extensive market research and self-reflection to understand the impact of the product
on consumers’ self-esteem and the reinforcement of colourism. This would involve conducting
studies to evaluate the psychological and societal implications.
•Instead of an abrupt rebranding, I would have initiated a gradual transition. Introducing new
products and marketing campaigns that promote diverse beauty standards and celebrate natural
skin tones.
•I would have phased out "Fair & Lovely" and similar products. This could have been done
gradually to avoid economic shocks while shifting the focus towards a more diverse product
line.
•Ensure strict compliance with advertising standards and regulations. Work closely with
regulatory bodies to develop guidelines that tackle deceptive marketing practices in the
cosmetics industry.
•Conduct training programs for HUL employees to raise awareness about the ethical concerns
related to their products. Ensure that employees are well-informed about the company's
commitment to inclusivity.
•Align corporate social responsibility initiatives with efforts to promote diversity and combat
colourism. This could involve investing in projects that benefit marginalized communities and
promote inclusive economic development.
•Launch educational initiatives to raise awareness about the harms of colourism and promote
diversity. Collaborate with non-profit organizations to create programs that challenge biases
and celebrate differences.
•I would have sponsored and supported cultural and artistic initiatives that promote diverse
beauty standards. This could include funding art exhibitions, cultural events, or film festivals
that celebrate diversity.
•Recognize the global nature of the issue and engage with international organizations and
initiatives that supporte for diversity and inclusivity in the beauty industry.
•Lastly regularly assess the impact of the initiatives and policies introduced to address the issue.
Adjust strategies based on feedback and changing societal values.

Conclusion
The "Fair & Lovely" case represents a nuanced and multifaceted issue rooted in cultural norms,
beauty standards, and societal expectations related to skin colour. While HUL's rebranding
effort was a significant response to the concerns raised by individuals and advocacy groups, it
is a reminder of the ongoing need to address issues of colourism and promote body positivity,
diversity, and inclusion. The case also serves as a testament to the power of public discourse in
challenging established norms and promoting for change in the beauty industry and society at
large. It reflects the broader global conversation on the influence of media, advertising, and
product branding on the way individuals perceive themselves and others.