GOVERNANCE AUDIT: THE BODY SHOP INTERNATIONAL LIMITED
POLITICAL COMPLICITY & IDEOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT ASSESSMENT
Classification: CONFIDENTIAL / GOVERNANCE AUDIT
Date: January 20, 2026
Subject: The Body Shop International Limited (Auréa Group)
Target Region: Israel / Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT)
Audit Scope: Governance Ideology, Supply Chain Integrity, Geopolitical Neutrality, Internal Compliance
Reference ID: TBS-AUDIT-2026-Q1
.1. Executive Summary
This comprehensive forensic audit assesses the political and ideological footprint of The Body Shop International Limited (hereinafter “The Body Shop” or “TBS”) to determine its level of “Political Complicity” regarding the State of Israel, the occupation of Palestinian territories, and associated systems of militarization. The audit was commissioned to rigorously screen the entity against four Core Intelligence Requirements: Governance Ideology, Lobbying & Trade, the “Safe Harbor” Test (comparative conflict response), and Internal Policy enforcement.
The Body Shop, a brand historically predicated on “activist capitalism” and ethical consumption, is currently navigating a period of profound structural instability following its exit from administration and acquisition by the Auréa Group in September 2024.1 This change in control has precipitated a marked shift in the company’s geopolitical posture, transitioning from the vocal advocacy of the Anita Roddick era to a risk-averse, commercially pragmatic “neutrality” that, upon forensic examination, reveals significant ideological inconsistencies.
1.1 Core Audit Findings
The analysis identifies a divergent risk profile. While the company maintains a low risk of direct operational complicity (retail presence) due to historical trademark exclusions, it exhibits a high risk of discursive complicity through the suppression of internal dissent and the application of double standards regarding international conflict.
●Governance Ideology (Risk Level: Low-Moderate): The new ownership consortium, Auréa Group, led by Mike Jatania and Paul Raphaël, does not exhibit the classic markers of ideological Zionism found in other multinational conglomerates. There is no evidence of Board membership in the Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI), AIPAC, or the Jewish National Fund (JNF). Conversely, Co-Founder Paul Raphaël’s background as the founding chair of LIFE (Lebanese International Finance Executives) and an advisor to the International Crisis Group suggests a geopolitical orientation that is distinctly non-Zionist.2 However, the audit finds that this potential for balance has been overridden by commercial imperatives, leading to a governance style that capitulates to pro-Israel legal pressure to secure market stability.
●Operational Distinction (Exonerating Factor): A critical finding of this audit is the confirmation that “Body Shop Israel” is a wholly separate corporate entity owned by Dr. Fischer Pharmaceuticals, a prominent Israeli manufacturer with deep ties to the Zionist industrial base and the IDF.3 The Body Shop International (UK) has no financial stake in, nor does it derive revenue from, these Israeli operations. In fact, the two entities have historically been adversaries in acrimonious trademark litigation.5
●The “Safe Harbor” Failure (Risk Level: High): The company fails the “Safe Harbor” test for political neutrality. In 2022, The Body Shop engaged in “Active Solidarity” with Ukraine, mobilizing funds, utilizing stores as donation points, and explicitly condemning Russian aggression.6 In 2024-2025, regarding the Gaza genocide and occupation, the company pivoted to “Enforced Neutrality,” banning staff from wearing Palestinian symbols and disciplining employees under the guise of “uniform policy”.7 This constitutes a material Double Standard.
●Supply Chain Opacity (Risk Level: Medium-High): The brand continues to market the “Spa of the World” line featuring Dead Sea Salt. While the company does not operate in Israel, the lack of transparent “Certificate of Origin” data confirming Jordanian sourcing creates a high risk that the minerals are sourced from the Israeli-occupied West Bank, contributing to the economic viability of settlement industries.8
1.2 Strategic Recommendation Overview
Based on the evidence, The Body Shop should be categorized as a “Soft Target” for complicity monitoring. It is not a primary architect of occupation infrastructure (unlike HP or G4S), nor is it a direct beneficiary of the Israeli consumer market (unlike McDonald’s or Zara). Its complicity is administrative and discursive: it maintains a “Palestine Exception” to its free speech and human rights policies. The recommendation is to focus pressure on the Double Standard in governance rather than divestment from non-existent Israeli assets.
.2. Corporate Governance & Ownership Architecture
To determine the “Governance Ideology” of The Body Shop, it is necessary to deconstruct the current ownership consortium and the trajectory of its leadership. The company has passed through three major ownership phases in the last decade—L’Oréal, Natura & Co, and Aurelius—before landing with Auréa Group. Each phase has left a residual impact on the company’s political risk profile.
2.1 The Auréa Group Consortium (2024–Present)
In September 2024, the “rescue” acquisition of The Body Shop was completed by Auréa Group, a specialist investment firm focused on the beauty, wellness, and longevity sectors.1 The consortium is led by Mike Jatania and Paul Raphaël. The ideological auditing of these two principals is central to understanding the current governance posture.
2.1.1 Mike Jatania (CEO & Executive Chairman)
Mike Jatania, a British tycoon of Indian origin, serves as the public face of the new ownership. His wealth was generated primarily through the Lornamead Group, a family office known for acquiring “orphan brands” from major conglomerates (e.g., Yardley, Lypsyl) and revitalizing them.10
●Political Affiliations: A screening of donor registries and public advocacy lists reveals no evidence of Mike Jatania serving as a donor or board member for Zionist advocacy groups such as the Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI), Labour Friends of Israel (LFI), or the Jewish Leadership Council. His philanthropic footprint is largely apolitical or focused on youth development, including involvement with The Prince’s Trust and Save the Children.11
●Wealth & Political Proximity: While Jatania appears on “Rich Lists” alongside major donors to the Conservative Party (e.g., Zabludowicz, who has campaigned to improve Israel’s image), there is no evidence of Jatania himself participating in these specific ideological campaigns.12 His inclusion in these lists is a function of net worth, not ideological alignment.
●Governance Style: Jatania’s leadership style is characterized by extreme pragmatism. His rapid intervention in the 2025 “Brent Cross Badge Incident” (see Section 6) demonstrates a hypersensitivity to reputational risk and a willingness to silence internal activism to avoid litigation. This suggests a governance ideology driven by commercial survival rather than Zionist conviction. He is a “compliance pragmatist,” not an ideologue.
2.1.2 Paul Raphaël (Co-Founder)
Paul Raphaël, the co-founder of Auréa Group, presents a geopolitical profile that diverges significantly from the standard Western corporate norm.
●Background: Raphaël is a former Executive Vice Chairman at UBS, where he managed wealth management divisions across Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America.2
●Ideological Footprint: Raphaël is the Founding Chairman of LIFE (Lebanese International Finance Executives) and a member of the Special Advisory Council of the International Crisis Group.2
●Implications for Audit: The presence of a high-profile Lebanese financier at the helm of the ownership group provides a structural counter-weight to potential Zionist alignment. LIFE is an organization dedicated to the advancement of the Lebanese diaspora and economy, often navigating complex regional politics involving Israel. It is analytically improbable that a Founding Chairman of LIFE would harbor ideological sympathies for the Zionist state or the occupation.
●The “Neutrality” Paradox: The fact that a company part-owned by a prominent Lebanese figure would enforce a ban on Palestinian solidarity badges suggests that the “Neutrality Policy” is likely a defensive measure imposed by legal counsel or co-investors to insulate the fragile business from “anti-semitism” accusations in the UK market, rather than a reflection of the owner’s personal politics. This reinforces the finding that the complicity is structural/commercial rather than ideological.
2.2 Historical Ownership Context
Understanding the current governance requires a brief review of the legacy left by previous owners, as “boycott lists” often rely on outdated data.
●The L’Oréal Era (2006–2017): High Complicity (Historical). During this decade, The Body Shop was a subsidiary of L’Oréal, a company with extensive manufacturing in Israel (Migdal HaEmek) and deep ties to the Israeli state. This period cemented The Body Shop’s inclusion on many initial BDS lists.13 However, this link was severed in 2017.
●Natura & Co (2017–2023): Reformist Era. The Brazilian owner Natura attempted to realign the brand with ethical activism, including “Black Lives Matter” support and campaigns for women’s rights.15 Natura sold the business in late 2023.
●Aurelius (2023–2024): Asset Stripping/Administration. The German private equity firm Aurelius placed the UK business into administration shortly after acquisition. Aurelius itself is a pan-European investor with no significant flagged ties to Israeli military tech in the provided dataset, though they invest generally in mid-market buyouts.16
2.3 Executive Management Screen (2024-2025)
●Charles Denton (Former CEO): Led the company through administration and the transition to Auréa. He departed in mid-2025.17 No Zionist advocacy links found.
●Hitesh Amin (Chief Technology & Transformation Officer) & Victor Sabbe (Chief Marketing Officer): Recent appointments under Jatania. Sabbe joins from L’Occitane.18 No political advocacy footprints identified in the current dataset.
Governance Verdict: The Board and Ownership structure of The Body Shop (Auréa Group) is CLEAN regarding direct Zionist affiliation. There are no “Conservative Friends of Israel” or JNF board members. The complicity arises from conduct, not membership.
.3. The “Dr. Fischer” Distinction & Trademark History
A frequent source of error in political complicity audits regarding The Body Shop is the existence of a retail chain in Israel trading under the name “Body Shop.” This section provides a forensic separation of these entities.
3.1 The Israeli Entity: “Body Shop Israel”
There exists a chain of stores in Israel branded as “Body Shop,” which operates in malls and shopping centers across the state (e.g., Tel Aviv, Rishon LeZion).
●Ownership: This entity is a subsidiary of Fischer Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (Dr. Fischer).3
●Founder Profile: Dr. Eli Fischer is a prominent Israeli industrialist and scientist. He founded the company in 1965 and is a recognized figure in the Israeli business establishment.
●Ideological Footprint of Dr. Fischer:
○Zionist Support: The Dr. Fischer brand is deeply embedded in the Israeli state narrative. The company actively supports the Israel Defense Forces (IDF). Snippets confirm the company provides products to IDF soldiers and has donated “care packages” to the military.4
○Settlement Activity: Dr. Fischer’s company manufactures products that are widely distributed within Israel and illegal settlements. The company’s headquarters are in Bnei Brak, within the 1948 borders, but its ideological support for the state apparatus is explicit.4
3.2 The Trademark War (1990s)
The relationship between The Body Shop International (UK) and Body Shop Israel (Dr. Fischer) is defined by hostility, not collaboration.
●The Conflict: In the 1990s, when Anita Roddick attempted to expand The Body Shop into Israel, she discovered that Dr. Fischer had already registered the trademark “Body Shop” in Israel.
●Litigation: The Body Shop International launched “acrimonious trademark litigation” in the Israeli courts to wrest control of the name. They failed. The Israeli courts upheld Dr. Fischer’s rights to the name within the Israeli jurisdiction.5
●The “Arab Boycott” Accusation: During the litigation, the Israeli franchisee accused Roddick and The Body Shop UK of adhering to the Arab League Boycott as a reason for their delayed entry. Roddick denied this, citing the trademark dispute as the sole barrier.5
3.3 Operational Separation
It is confirmed with high confidence that:
1.No Revenue Flow: The Body Shop International (Auréa Group) receives zero royalties or franchise fees from the “Body Shop” stores in Israel.
2.No Management Control: The UK entity has no influence over the hiring, sourcing, or marketing of the Israeli entity.
3.Distinct Supply Chains: “Body Shop Israel” manufactures its own products (often using Dr. Fischer’s labs), while The Body Shop International manufactures globally.4
Audit Note: Any audit that lists The Body Shop as “operating in Israel” or “having stores in Tel Aviv” is factually incorrect. This is a case of Trademark Doppelgangers.
.4. Supply Chain Forensic Audit: The Dead Sea Nexus
While the retail operations are distinct, The Body Shop International’s supply chain presents a significant compliance risk regarding the sourcing of raw materials, specifically Dead Sea Salt.
4.1 The Geopolitics of Mineral Extraction
The Dead Sea is a shared resource bordering Israel, the Occupied West Bank, and Jordan.
●Occupied Sourcing (High Risk): The northern basin of the Dead Sea lies largely within the Occupied Palestinian Territories (West Bank). Israel effectively controls this area (Area C) and has licensed companies (e.g., Dead Sea Works / ICL Group, Ahava) to extract minerals. This extraction is widely considered pillage under international law (Fourth Geneva Convention, Art. 49/55), as it depletes occupied resources for the benefit of the occupier.
●Jordanian Sourcing (Lower Risk): The eastern shore belongs to Jordan. Companies like Arab Potash Company and Numeira Mixed Salts operate here. Sourcing from Jordan is legally distinct from sourcing from Israeli settlements.
4.2 The Body Shop’s Sourcing Profile
The Body Shop markets the “Spa of the World™ Dead Sea Salt Scrub”.8 The audit examined the provenance of this ingredient.
●Lack of Transparency: The product packaging and website descriptions inspected in the snippets do not consistently display a “Country of Origin” for the salt itself (only the finished product, which may be “Made in UK” or “Made in Thailand” using imported salt).
●Distributor Links (Wholesale Supplies Plus): Research snippets identifying “Wholesale Supplies Plus” (a supplier of raw ingredients for cosmetics) explicitly state that their Dead Sea Salt origin is Israel.20 While this specific distributor supplies “crafters,” it highlights the global dominance of Israeli supply chains for this commodity.
●The JICA Report: A Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) report on Jordanian Dead Sea products mentions “The Body Shop” in a pricing reference table but does not explicitly list them as a client of the Jordanian supplier “Al Numeira”.9 This ambiguity is a red flag.
●The “Ahava” Precedent: Historically, The Body Shop was targeted by boycotts when owned by L’Oréal due to L’Oréal’s use of Dead Sea minerals. Since the separation, The Body Shop has not provided definitive public evidence (e.g., a transparency map) proving its salt is exclusively Jordanian.
4.3 Third-Party Manufacturing Risks
Even if The Body Shop intends to source ethically, the use of third-party contract manufacturers (OEMs) introduces risk. Many OEMs pool mineral resources. Without a segregated supply chain (Identity Preserved), it is statistically probable that any “Dead Sea” product contains minerals processed by Israeli industrial giants like ICL, which operate on occupied land.
Supply Chain Verdict: RISK DETECTED. Until The Body Shop publishes a Certificate of Origin confirming “Jordanian Sourcing Only” for its Dead Sea Salt, it must be assumed that the company is potentially sourcing from Israeli-controlled extraction facilities in the West Bank.
.5. The “Safe Harbor” Stress Test: Comparative Conflict Response
The “Safe Harbor” test evaluates whether a company applies its “neutrality” policies consistently across different geopolitical conflicts. A divergence in policy indicates an ideological bias. This audit compares The Body Shop’s response to the Russia-Ukraine war (2022) against the Israel-Gaza war (2023-Present).
5.1 The Ukraine Response (2022): “Active Solidarity”
Following the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, The Body Shop engaged in a comprehensive campaign of political and material support.
●Explicit Condemnation: The company issued a formal statement titled “We stand with Ukraine.” The language was unequivocal: “Russia’s act of aggression is unacceptable and is a direct violation of the universal human rights the world has fought so hard to protect… Governments must act and stand together in solidarity with the people of Ukraine”.6
●Material Mobilization:
○Direct Donations: A corporate donation of £25,000 to the British Red Cross.6
○Donation Matching: The company matched customer donations in Germany, Sweden, and Denmark.
○Sales Percentage: The Body Shop Georgia donated 2% of all sales to support Ukrainians.6
○Refugee Support: Stores in Hungary and Germany were used as collection points for essential goods for refugees.
●Symbolic Activism: Crucially, the company encouraged the display of political symbols. “Store colleagues are wearing Ukraine badges and displaying Ukrainian flags, as a gesture of solidarity”.6
●Corporate Action: The company eventually ceased operations in Russia, accepting a financial loss to maintain ethical consistency.
5.2 The Gaza Response (2023-2025): “Enforced Neutrality”
In response to the conflict in Gaza, where international courts have adjudicated on plausible genocide and illegal occupation, The Body Shop’s response has been radically different.
●The “Neutrality” Pivot: Under the leadership of Mike Jatania, the company adopted a strict policy of silence. When challenged on staff expression, the CEO stated: “Our position as a business is to remain neutral on political matters”.7
●Absence of Aid: Unlike the coordinated global campaign for Ukraine (donations, matching, store collections), there is no evidence in the snippets of a corporate-wide “Stand with Gaza” campaign, nor match-funding for UNRWA or Medical Aid for Palestinians.
●Suppression of Symbols: While Ukrainian flags were explicitly encouraged in 2022 (“Store colleagues are wearing Ukraine badges…”), Palestinian flags were explicitly banned in 2025 (see Section 6).
5.3 Analysis of the Double Standard
The disparity is quantifiable and material.
●Ukraine: Aggression is a “violation of human rights.” (Moral/Political framing).
●Palestine: Conflict is a “political matter” requiring “neutrality.” (Risk-averse framing).
This “Safe Harbor” failure indicates that The Body Shop’s governance does not view Palestinian human rights as equivalent to Ukrainian human rights. It aligns the company with Western foreign policy interests rather than universal ethical principles.
Table 1: Comparative Conflict Response Matrix
| Metric
|
Russia-Ukraine (2022)
|
Israel-Gaza (2023-2025)
|
Compliance Finding
|
| Official Narrative
|
“We stand with Ukraine”; “Russia’s act of aggression.”
|
“Remain neutral on political matters.”
|
ASYMMETRIC
|
| Staff Uniform Policy
|
Encouraged: “Colleagues wearing Ukraine badges.”
|
Banned: “Do not permit badges with political connotations.”
|
CONTRADICTORY
|
| Financial Action
|
Direct donations, Sales %, Matching.
|
No corporate-wide campaign evident.
|
DISPARATE
|
| Lobbying
|
Called for “Governments to act.”
|
Silence.
|
NON-COMPLIANT
|
.6. Internal Policy & Compliance: The Brent Cross Incident
The most significant evidence of “Political Complicity” comes from the active suppression of staff solidarity. This section details the incident at the Brent Cross store, which serves as a case study for the weaponization of internal policy.
6.1 The Incident Mechanics
In late 2025, a sales assistant at The Body Shop’s Brent Cross location (a major shopping center in North London with a substantial Jewish demographic) was observed wearing badges depicting the Palestinian flag.
●The Complaint: The incident was not merely a customer service complaint but was escalated by UK Lawyers for Israel (UKLFI), a pro-Israel advocacy group specializing in “lawfare” (using legal threats to suppress Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions activism).7
●The Legal Threat: UKLFI wrote to The Body Shop, arguing that the display of Palestinian symbols made Jewish/Israeli customers feel “uncomfortable and unwelcome.” They invoked Section 29(3) of the Equality Act 2010, suggesting that allowing staff to wear the badges could amount to harassment (creating a “hostile, intimidating, or offensive environment” based on religion or belief).7
6.2 The Management Capitulation
The response from CEO Mike Jatania was immediate and compliant with the lobby group’s demands.
●Direct Intervention: Jatania personally responded to UKLFI.
●Policy Enforcement: He stated: “While we recognise that our employees may hold their personal views, we do not permit the wearing of badges or emblems with political or campaigning connotations during working hours”.7
●Disciplinary Confirmation: He confirmed the matter had been “addressed in line with our internal standards,” implying the employee was disciplined or ordered to remove the badges.
●UKLFI Victory: Caroline Turner (Director of UKLFI) publicly “welcomed” the confirmation and “commended” The Body Shop for its stance.7
6.3 Ideological Implications
This incident reveals the “Compliance Delta” mentioned in Section 5.
1.Selective Enforcement: The company’s “Employee Policy Booklet” regarding “dress and presentation standards” was used as a sword against the Palestinian flag, whereas it was waived (or interpreted differently) for the Ukrainian flag in 2022.
2.External Influence: The speed with which the CEO responded to UKLFI suggests a governance structure that is highly permeable to pro-Israel lobbying. The fear of litigation under the Equality Act led the company to adopt a definition of “neutrality” that effectively erases Palestinian identity from the shop floor.
3.Governance Ideology: This confirms that the current leadership prioritizes risk mitigation over the brand’s historical “activist” identity. They are willing to alienate progressive staff and customers to avoid conflict with organized Zionist litigation groups.
.7. Historical Complicity & Brand Legacy
To fully contextualize the current risk, one must acknowledge the company’s past interactions with this issue. The current “neutrality” is likely a scar tissue response to previous controversies.
7.1 The 2002 Human Rights Award Controversy
●The Event: In 2002, The Body Shop presented a Human Rights Award (and a $75,000 grant) to the National Committee for the Defense of the Rights of the Internally Displaced (NCDRID), a Palestinian NGO advocating for the Right of Return for refugees.23
●The Backlash: The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and other Jewish activist groups launched a boycott campaign, accusing the company of supporting an agenda destructive to the Jewish state.
●The Apology: Then-Chairman Adrian Bellamy capitulated, writing to the ADL: “We sincerely apologize if we have caused offense in making this award.” The company removed references to the award from its website.23
Insight: This historical event set a precedent for the company’s corporate culture: Supporting Palestine costs money; supporting other causes generates goodwill. This lesson appears to have been institutionalized and inherited by the Auréa Group.
.8. Lobbying & Trade
The audit screened for membership in bilateral trade chambers (e.g., British-Israel Chamber of Commerce).
●Direct Membership: No evidence was found of The Body Shop or Auréa Group holding membership in the British-Israel Chamber of Commerce or sponsoring “Brand Israel” events.
●Indirect Trade: The primary “trade” link is the importation of raw materials (Dead Sea minerals). This is a commercial relationship, not an ideological lobbying effort.
●Dr. Fischer’s Role: It is noted that the unrelated Israeli entity (Dr. Fischer) is heavily involved in Israeli trade associations and innovation sectors, which often confuses the data. The Body Shop UK is free of these formal lobbying ties.
.9. Conclusion & Strategic Outlook
The Body Shop International Limited, under the ownership of Auréa Group, presents a complex case for the political auditor. It is not an ideological Zionist entity, yet it functions as a complicit actor through its administrative policies.
Final Audit Rating: FUNCTIONALLY COMPLICIT (via Double Standards)
1.Ownership: CLEAN. No Zionist ties. Co-founder Paul Raphaël’s background (Lebanon/Crisis Group) suggests a potential for balance, though this is currently suppressed.
2.Operations: CLEAN. No retail footprint in Israel. The “Body Shop Israel” is a separate, antagonistic entity (Dr. Fischer).
3.Supply Chain: HIGH RISK. The “Dead Sea Salt” supply chain is opaque. Without Jordan-specific certification, the assumption of Israeli/Settlement sourcing stands.
4.Governance: COMPLICIT. The company fails the “Safe Harbor” test. It champions human rights in Ukraine while suppressing them in Palestine. It capitulates to “lawfare” from pro-Israel groups (UKLFI) to silence staff.
Actionable Insight for Future Ranking:
Data collection should focus on obtaining a Safety Data Sheet (SDS) or Certificate of Origin for the “Spa of the World” Dead Sea Salt. This document alone determines if the company is pillaging occupied resources or trading with Jordan. Until then, the company’s “Neutrality” is a facade for passive support of the status quo.
..Works cited
