Hiring on The Basis of Looks: Abercrombie & Fitch Case Study Part II
by Hiring on the basis of looks, appearance or physical attractiveness is nothing new and certain industries have been doing it for years. Although "The Gap" and other companies do it, they employ attractive people from different backgrounds, whereas a company such as A&F, employs only blond, blue-eyed preppies.
Different perspectives of various stakeholders including the company, the employees and potential employees are influenced by this decision and these perspectives must be compared, contrasted and analyzed. What type of actions could the company take to be fairer and meet these ethical obligations, and why must these ethical and public issues be considered in stakeholder relationships?
Is Hiring On Bases Of “Looks” Unfair Or Discriminatory?
Image via Wikipedia
Evaluation of the “A&F look”
On one hand the “A&F look” policy could be genius. This corporation is taking the insecurities of the people, whether it is race or looks and exploiting them through their stores. Many people would want to shop at this store due to the fact that they wish they were sexier and more attractive. The thinking may be that if they wear these clothes other boys or girls would like them more. The clothes may be a confidence booster and these people will pay any ridiculously high price to get that look. Also men and women of other races who wish they were white, but would never admit to it could be one step closer with this line of clothing wear. If a man or woman would walk in to one of these stores and see a young Caucasian man or woman dressed a certain way, it could be easily emulated and the feeling of blending in would be just that much easier.
On the other hand this is probably the most ridiculous and outrageous situation I have ever heard of in today’s society. The “A&F look” promotes nothing but low self esteem, bigotry, racism, and elitism. This company should be sued for everything that it has. To tell a young woman to choose between her religion or her job, to push another young woman to where no customer can see her due to her prosthetic arm, and to reject people for their race is not a company the expresses the American way nor is it the least bit ethical. It is clear why Abercrombie and Fitch showed up in Corporate Responsibility Magazine as one of the worst companies (Clifford, 2010, para. 6).
Even though being “racy” and “controversial” can bring huge returns as Abercrombie and Fitch so screamingly and conspicuously has done for some time doesn’t mean that it should give the corporation the license to be completely and utterly unethical in its business practices. Some examples include their nude magazines with tall, well-built men standing outside of the Abercrombie and Fitch stores with their shirts off. Though I would disagree with some of their outrageous marketing strategies, I must respect their freedom of speech and their marketing plan. The controversy brought in much press and raging mothers, which in turn brought in their rebelling children. It was genius. But as a corporation in the eyes and ears of people everyday one must be weary of the line between controversial behaviors and unethical behaviors, and racy business practices and illegal business practices.
Employment Practices
The employment practices being unfair are the least you could say about Abercrombie and Fitch. With Abercrombie and Fitch you must fit what they sell, and to get this they basically slapped America in the face.
“They launched one of the most offensive racial and ethnic campaigns. They had white people splashed all over their campaigns and in giant life size posters all around the store. The image they wanted to portray was simple. An all American image. An image they sold. They did not sell products but they sold an image.” (Arunrafi, 2009, para. 3)
This statement makes sense when you consider, as discussed earlier, the disgraceful firing of a Muslim girl for wearing a headscarf who refused to remove it for religious reasons. They do not hire African-Americans, Mexicans, and other ethnic groups and also for demoting a girl because of her prosthetic arm and so on. Ethically this is a catastrophe. We have laws for exactly these purposes to protect people from not being able to work due to their race, age, creed, gender, sexual orientation, and so on. We have laws because of corporations such as Abercrombie and Fitch. We have laws that we base in ethics to protect our fellow man from such discriminatory acts.
Part 1 & 3
http://socyberty.com/issues/hiring-on-the-basis-of-looks-abercrombie-fitch-case-study-part-i/
http://socyberty.com/issues/hiring-on-the-basis-of-looks-abercrombie-fitch-case-study-part-iii/
Liked it
