The Observer reported at the beginning of the month that the Body Shop has pulled out of a supplier in Colombia on ethical grounds. This is a story about a company doing the right thing. It started a year ago when Christian Aid contacted the Observer to tell them a Body Shop supplier had just kicked 123 families off their land in order to burn down all the crops and trees to make a huge palm plantation. As Christian Aid's country rep in Colombia, I was personally involved in the case.

I visited the displaced farmers and we hosted them in the Christian Aid office regularly. They were some of the most dignified people I have ever met, battered on all sides by an ongoing armed conflict and now displaced by a company that simply did not care what happened to them. The impact of the Body Shop's decision will be felt by these farmers and their families, as they continue to fight for a return to their land, and it will inspire farmers all over Colombia who will see that campaigning can lead to change.



Throughout Christian Aid's engagement in this case, the big unknown was what the Body Shop would eventually decide. We knew the facts of the case, and we were confident that, when the Body Shop had them at its disposal, it would do the right thing. But the decision will have been difficult for them financially. Daabon, the Colombian company, has until now supplied the Body Shop with the majority of its palm oil, which it uses for its flagship product, soap. It is not all that easy to find new suppliers when you have extensive ethical guidelines, and I am sure some of the top executives sitting in the boardroom last week were arguing not to sever ties. But that argument did not prevail. Why not?



First, it's just good business. The brand is more important than short-term supply difficulties. The executives knew the story wasn't going away. Christian Aid made it clear that we were standing by the families through thick and thin. Christian Peacemaker Teams (no relation) were organising pickets outside stores in the US and Europe. The risk of more negative publicity was just too great. That was the thinking behind going to the press in the first place: to help tip the balance of risk in favour of justice. It worked.



But that is not all. The determination to do the right thing, so evident and inspiring in Anita Roddick, Body Shop's founder, was also evident in the Body Shop staff we worked with. They have set themselves up as a different company, to be judged by different standards, and they do not begrudge being held to account. The business case and the moral case appear to be refreshingly closely intertwined in the company's decision making.



Christian Aid's partners, who have suffered decades of displacement and violence at the hands of paramilitaries often linked to multinational companies, were sceptical of sitting down with the Body Shop (now owned by L'Oreal). But my colleagues and I went out on a limb, insisting we had confidence in the good faith of the Body Shop.



Thankfully, we were right. The fight is not over for the families of Las Pavas. They are still displaced, surviving on food aid and fearful, in a country with a history of violence, for their future. But they are boosted by this decision, which is all over the Colombian press. Daabon has always stubbornly denied any wrongdoing – now it looks isolated. The farmers will use the Body Shop's decision in their campaign for their land and a future for their kids. Other global companies that buy Daabon's palm oil will be next in line for picketers and annoying front page stories. Eventually, justice will prevail.



I know people are cynical of companies claiming to be ethical, and I am under no illusion that the Body Shop is perfect, or steers clear of hard-nosed business decisions. But nor do I underestimate the power of such a company to play its part in creating a global trading system that is a little fairer, and which values human dignity more than a quick buck.