CRUELTY-FREE ETİKETLİ KOZMETİK MARKALARININ SOSYAL MEDYA HESAPLARININ İNCELENMESİNE YÖNELİK BİR İÇERİK ANALİZİ

Year 2023, Issue: C-iasoS 2022 Özel Sayısı, 219 - 233, 30.03.2023

Bilge Villi , Reyhan Bahar

https://doi.org/10.18092/ulikidince.1220000

Cited By: 1

Abstract

Kozmetik sektöründeki birçok firma ürünlerini hayvanlar üzerinde test etmektedir. Bu nedenle her yıl dünya üzerinde 100 milyondan fazla hayvan deneylerde işkence görmekte ve bu hayvanların neredeyse hepsinin deney prosedürünün ardından yaşamlarına son verilmektedir. Deneylerde kullanılmak üzere hayvan üreten firmalar ise bu işten milyonlarca dolar kazanmaktadır. Hayvan deneyleri ve bu deneylerin yıkıcı sonuçları hem dünyada hem de ülkemizde yeterli düzeyde insanın haderdar olduğu ve önemsediği bir konu değildir. Ancak son yıllarda yaşanan bazı gelişmeler konunun önemini gündeme getirmiştir. Hayvan haklarını savunan birçok kuruluş, hayvan hakları savunucuları ve bilinçli tüketiciler sayesinde dünya genelinde pek çok işletme ve marka bir ürünün hayvanlar üzerinde test edilmediğini gösteren cruelty-free etiketli ürünler üretmeye başlamışlardır. Çalışmada, Türkiye’de kozmetik sektöründe faaliyet gösteren “cruelty-free” etiketli markaların internet siteleri ve sosyal medya hesapları içerik analizi yöntemiyle incelenerek cruelty-free konusunu ne kadar ön plana çıkardıklarını ortaya koymak amaçlanmıştır. Araştırmanın sonuçlarına göre; cruetly-free etiketli markaların kendilerini rekabette üstün kılabilecekleri bir husus olan cruelty-free konusunu yeterince ön plana çıkarmadıkları ve tüketicilerle kolayca etkileşim oluşturabilecekleri sosyal medyayı bu yönde yeterli düzeyde kullanmadıkları görülmektedir.

Keywords

Cruelty-Free, Cruelty-Free Kozmetikler, Etik Tüketim, Hayvan Deneyleri

References

• Acme-Hardesty (2022). Green Cosmetics: The Push for Sustainable Beauty. Erişim Adresi https://www.acme-hardesty.com/green-cosmetics-sustainable-beauty/
• Askadilla, W. L., ve Krisjanti, M. N. (2017). Understanding Indonesian Green Consumer Behavior on Cosmetic Products: Theory of Planned Behavior Model. Polish Journal of Management Studies, 15(2), 7.
• Balderjahn, I., Buerke, A., Kirchgeorg, M., Peyer, M., Seegebarth, B., ve Wiedmann, K. P. (2013). Consciousness For Sustainable Consumption: Scale Development and New Insights in the Economic Dimension of Consumers’ Sustainability. AMS Review, 3(4), 181-192.
• Berki-Kiss, D., ve Menrad, K. (2022). Ethical consumption: Influencing Factors of Consumer´ s Intention to Purchase Fairtrade Roses. Cleaner and Circular Bioeconomy, 2, 100008.
• Brantlinger, E., Jimenez, R., Klingner, J., Pugach, M., ve Richardson, V. (2005). Qualitative Studies in Special Education. Exceptional Children, 71(2), 195-207.
• Cadete, B. (2021). How Cruelty-free Logos Influence Consumers’ Purchase Intention: The Effects of Brand Image Logo Awareness and Moral Obligation. (Doctoral dissertation). Universidade Catolica Portugesa, Portugal.
• Carrington, M. J., Neville, B. A., ve Whitwell, G. J. (2010). Why Ethical Consumers Don’t Walk Their Talk: Towards A Framework for Understanding the Gap Between the Ethical Purchase Intentions and Actual Buying Behaviour of Ethically Minded Consumers. Journal of Business Ethics, 97(1), 139-158.
• Cruelty-Free International (2022). Alternatives to Animal Testing. Erişim Adresi https://crueltyfreeinternational.org/about-animal-testing/alternatives-animal-testing
• Dangelico, R. M., ve Pontrandolfo, P. (2010). From Green Product Definitions and Classifications to the Green Option Matrix. Journal of Cleaner Production, 18(16-17), 1608-1628.
• Dewi, W. W. A., ve Avicenna, F. (2020). Social Media Marketing: Consumer Behavior on The Cruelty Free Concern of Beauty Brand. Jurnal Ilmu Komunikasi, 17(1), 95-106.
• Elkington, J., ve Hailes, J. (1998). Manual 2000: Life Choices for the Future You Want. Hodder & Stoughton Trade.
• Elo, S. ve Kyngas, S. H. (2008). The Qualitative Content Analysis Process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62(1), 107-115.
• Ethical Elephant (2019). Cruelty-free vs. Vegan – What’s the Difference? Erişim Adresi https://ethicalelephant.com/crueltyfree-vs-vegan/
• European Commission. (2022). Ban on animal testing, Erişim Adresi https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/sectors/cosmetics/ban-animal-testing_en
• Evans, D. (2010). Social Media Marketing: The Next Generation of Business Engagement, Wiley and Sons, Indianapolis.
• Fux, P., ve Čater, B. (2018). Analysis of interactions on nonprofit organization’s social media channel in the context of cruelty-free ethical consumerism. Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, 7(1), 29-46.
• Grădinaru, C., Obadă, D. R., Grădinaru, I. A., ve Dabija, D. C. (2022). Enhancing Sustainable Cosmetics Brand Purchase: A Comprehensive Approach Based on the SOR Model and the Triple Bottom Line. Sustainability, 14(21), 14118.
• Grappe, C. G., Lombart, C., Louis, D., ve Durif, F. (2021). “Not Tested on Animals”: How Consumers React to Cruelty-Free Cosmetics Proposed by Manufacturers and Retailers? International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 49(11), 1532-1553.
• Hsu, C. L., Chang, C. Y., ve Yansritakul, C. (2017). Exploring Purchase Intention of Green Skincare Products Using the Theory of Planned Behavior: Testing the Moderating Effects of Country of Origin and Price Sensitivity. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 34, 145-152.
• Huddart Kennedy, E., Baumann, S., ve Johnston, J. (2019). Eating for Taste and Eating for Change: Ethical Consumption as a High-Status Practice. Social Forces, 98(1), 381-402.
• Humane Society International. (2022). Be Cruelty-Free Campaign. Erişim Adresi https://www.hsi.org/issues/be-cruelty-free/
• Langen, N. (2013). Synthesis: Ethics in Consumer Choice and Empirical Analysis based on the Example of Coffee. Ethics in Consumer Choice, 331-344.
• Magano, J., Au-Yong-Oliveira, M., Ferreira, B., ve Leite, Â. (2022). A Cross-Sectional Study on Ethical Buyer Behavior towards Cruelty-Free Cosmetics: What Consequences for Female Leadership Practices? Sustainability, 14(13), 7786.
• Markovic, A. (2021). Cruelty-Free Makeup Brands: A Complete Guide to Ethical Cosmetics, Erişim Adresi https://www.unsustainablemagazine.com/vegan-makeup-a-guide-to-cruelty-free-cosmetics-brands/
• Mevzuat Bilgi Sistemi (2022). Kozmetik Kanunu, Erişim Adresi https://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/mevzuat?MevzuatNo=5324&MevzuatTur=1&MevzuatTertip=5
• Miguel, I., Coelho, A., ve Bairrada, C. M. (2020). Modelling Attitude Towards Consumption of Vegan Products. Sustainability, 13(1), 1-17.
• Neilsen (2015). Package This: Beauty Consumers Favor ‘Cruelty Free’ and ‘Natural’ Product Claims, Erişim Adresi https://www.nielsen.com/insights/2015/package-this-beauty-consumers-favor-cruelty-free-and-natural-product-claims.html/
• Opinion Research Corporation. (2016). Natural Food Labels Survey. Consumer Reports National Research Centre, Erişim Adresi https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_events/975753/cr_intro_and_2016_food_survey.pdf
• Özmen, H. İ., ve Villi, B. (2014). Sosyal medya ve finansal performans: Borsa İstanbul’da işlem gören işletmeler üzerinde bir araştırma. Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 14(1), 269-294.
• Pop, R. A., Saplacan, Z., ve Alt, M. A. (2020). Social Media Goes Green-The Impact of Social Media on Green Cosmetics Purchase Motivation and Intention. Information, 11(9), 447.
• Resmi Gazete. (2022). Kozmetik Yönetmeliğinde Değişiklik Yapılmasına Dair Yönetmelik, Erişim Adresi https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2022/11/20221114-1-1.pdf
• Schröder, M. J., ve McEachern, M. G. (2004). Consumer Value Conflicts Surrounding Ethical Food Purchase Decisions: A Focus on Animal Welfare. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 28(2), 168-177.
• Sheehan, K. B., ve Lee, J. (2014). What’s Cruel About Cruelty Free: An Exploration of Consumers, Moral Heuristics, and Public Policy. Journal of Animal Ethics, 4(2), 1-15.
• Sinaga, D. (2018). Ketika Label No Animal Tested Tidak Memiliki Arti. Erişim Adresi https://www.cnnindonesia.com/edukasi/20180111135124-445-268139/ketika-label- no-animal-tested-tidak-memiliki-arti
• Sreedhar, D., Manjula, N., Pise, A., ve Pise, S. (2020). Ban of Cosmetic Testing on Animals: A Brief Overview. International Journal of Current Research and Review, 12(14), 113.
• The Hartman Group. (2015). Sustainability Practices: Animal Welfare. Erişim Adresi https://www.hartman-group.com/acumenPdfs/animal-welfare-2015-06-11.pdf
• Ticaret Bakanlığı (2020). Kozmetik Sektör Raporu, Erişim Adresi https://ticaret.gov.tr/data/5b87000813b8761450e18d7b/Kozmetik%20Sekt%C3%B6r%20Bro%C5%9F%C3%BCr%C3%BC%202022.pdf
• TNS Opinion and Social. (2015). Attitudes of Europeans toward Animal Welfare. Special Eurobarometer 442, Erişim Adresi file:///Users/bilgevilli/Downloads/attitudes%20of%20europeans%20towards%20animal%20welfare-EW0116233ENN.pdf
• Van Riemsdijk, L., Ingenbleek, P. T., van Trijp, H. C., ve Van der Veen, G. (2017). Marketing animal-friendly products: Addressing the consumer social dilemma with reinforcement positioning strategies. Animals, 7(12), 98.
• Vegan Friendly (2022). What’s the Difference Between Vegan & Cruelty Free? Erişim Adresi https://www.veganfriendly.org.uk/articles/difference-between-vegan-and-cruelty-free/
• Wang, Y., Zhao, Y., ve Song, F. (2020). The Ethical Issues of Animal Testing in Cosmetics Industry. Humanities and Social Sciences, 8(4), 112-116.
• White, T. B., Zahay, D. L., Thorbjørnsen, H., ve Shavitt, S. (2008). Getting too Personal: Reactance to Highly Personalized E-mail Solicitations. Marketing Letters, 19(1), 39-50.
• Wooliscroft, B., Ganglmair-Wooliscroft, A., ve Noone, A. (2014). The Hierarchy of Ethical Consumption Behavior: The Case of New Zealand. Journal of Macromarketing, 34(1), 57-72.
• Wuisan, E. C., ve Februadi, A. (2022). Consumers’ Attitude towards the Cruelty-Free Label on Cosmetic and Skincare Products and Its Influence on Purchase Intention. Journal of Marketing Innovation (JMI), 2(2), 33-43.