THE surprise at Body Shop is not so much that Anita Roddick is stepping back from everyday management, but that it took her so long to bite the bullet.
The group's problems have been evident for some time as competition from other retailers offering similar ''ethical'' products has grown.
Instead of ploughing on with more shop openings around the globe, the group should have developed new strategies to put some distance between itself and the competition.
Gordon Roddick acknowledged that Body Shop had become too big to be run by its founders. This has been clear for some time. The group's sales on a like-for-like basis are static at best and margins under pressure, with no respite on the horizon.
There have been changes, such as last year's ditching of the plain containers for the various lotions and unguents for more colourful equivalents; and the launching of new-look stores with areas set aside for massage and beauty treatments.
This may be a good idea for the company's larger stores, but it could hardly work in the many smaller units.
Anita Roddick is a tireless supporter of rain forests and other environmental causes. There is an enormous amount to do in these areas, and she should devote her undoubted energies to them.
She is also a great evangelist for Body Shop and its principles. The danger for shareholders is that she may not give the new chief executive Patrick Gournay a completely free hand to make the changes required.
Then there is the relationship between Gournay and Stuart Rose, who is to become deputy chairman in charge of the strategic review. There is great scope for clashes between the two.
Naturally, one could not expect Anita Roddick to stand by and see Body Shop's creed subverted, but Gournay must be allowed to manage the business.
It is by no means a lost cause, given its strong brand, global reach and strong cash generation. However, it clearly needs a shake-up, for which Gournay appears to have the necessary managerial experience - if he is allowed to get on with the job.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article