The retailer Boots has responded to pressure over “sexist pricing” of products by changing the cost of its razors and eye cream. The chain made the pledge after a Change.org petition highlighted the disparity between equivalent products marketed at men and women, as it claimed that women are the victims of “sexist pricing” on the high street.

The petition revealed that Boots eye cream was £9.99 for women and £7.29 for men, while razors were priced at £2.29 for eight women’s razors and £1.49 for a pack of 10 for men. The petition, which attracted 41,790 signatures, urged the chief executive, Simon Roberts, to review the apparent disparity in pricing.

In a statement on its website, Boots said it had never operated a pricing system that discriminated against women “so we were surprised and disappointed to see recent examples in the press that did not reflect our own standards”.



It said: “We immediately conducted a review on all Boots own-brand and proprietary ranges to better understand the cited examples. This review has reassured us that for Boots own brands the two reported examples, Boots disposable razors and Botanics eye roll-on, are indeed exceptional cases which do not completely meet our principles and we are taking action to correct these prices.

“Following the review of Boots own-brand ranges, we are speaking to our suppliers to ask them to conduct similar reviews of their brands, however we cannot comment further on their pricing – that would be a matter for the brands themselves.”

Last month the Times released the results of a survey showing that the cost of clothes, beauty products and toys for females was routinely higher than equivalent items aimed at males. Across all products with different prices, those aimed at women were 37% higher on average, the newspaper said.

The equality campaigning group the Fawcett Society welcomed the change, while calling on other retailers to follow suit. The society’s chief executive, Sam Smethers, said: “It is welcome to see Boots change its sexist pricing practices in response to consumer pressure.”

“This is just the start. We are also hearing from manufacturers who are making it clear that it is the retailers who are responsible for this sexist price discrimination. In other words, the claim that the price difference is because products marketed at women cost more to make is simply not holding up. Women are being ripped off every single day and that has to change.”

The chairwoman of the women and equalities committee, Maria Miller, last month raised the prospect of retailers being called to parliament to face questioning about the issue of apparent differences in the prices of products for men and women.

“Retailers need to explain how they can be charging such different prices for items that look identical,” she said. “It’s an excellent piece of research and it’s something which the committee will be considering whether we should take further.”

Differing price tags faced by male and female consumers have also been coming under the spotlight internationally. The New York City department of consumer affairs released a study in December of 800 nearly identical products with male and female versions. The report, entitled From Cradle to Cane: The Cost of Being a Female Consumer, found that, on average, female versions cost 7% more than male.

“Products’ price differences based on gender are largely inescapable for female consumers simply due to the product offerings available in the market,” its authors stated.