It has
recently been suggested to me that ethical consumption has the tendency to be
purist; it sets the bar too high – setting consumers up for failure before they
have even started. Traditional consumption, based on the belief that it is up
to the consumer to make their own purchasing decisions and up to businesses to
give them what they want, often has unwanted consequences – over-consumption
and the unethical treatment of people, animals and the environment.
The claim
that telling consumers what to buy has the tendency to be purist initially made
me uncomfortable, but it also forced me to think about whether it was correct
and then whether there was something wrong with being a purist.
Finally it
led me to ask ‘Am I just being a stickler
for excessive correctness?’
Yet I kept
thinking that certain consumer decisions are unethical and should be avoided.
The actions of certain companies are so unethical that they should be
boycotted. Nestle, for example, has been the target of a sustained boycott
campaign for its marketing of infant formula in developing countries. Coca
Cola, Shell and Nike are other well-known examples.
One thing
that deters people from following ethical guidelines is the belief that it
takes all the fun and enjoyment out of shopping (and life). It is exhausting if
not impossible to make the right choices about everything we buy.
I don’t buy this argument. I do not get any
enjoyment or satisfaction out of consuming a product that has, for example, been
tested on animals, harvested or manufactured by slaves, or manufactured by a company
that has deliberately thwarted environmental protections. Very rarely are these
products necessities – products that we cannot do without. Luxury products,
those we want but don’t need, are probably the easiest to avoid. Necessities
are the real challenge for ethical consumers. How does one buy ethical petrol,
dairy products or electricity? I want to tackle these questions head-on.
Is it time
to rethink product such as petrol, dairy products and electricity as necessary?
If they are indeed necessary and, as is likely, there are no ethical
alternatives, is it ok to choose the best of a bad lot? Or, are we ethically obliged
to personally boycott them?
The benefits
of choosing ethically are immediately apparent. My conscience will be clear
knowing I have not consumed a product that is produced or sold under unethical
circumstances or supported a company that has ethically questionable practices.
I choose to
boycott companies (and parent companies) that engage in ‘greenwashing’ not just
certain products e.g.: I don’t think it is ok to get Rainforest Alliance coffee
at McDonalds. So what if your coffee is produced sustainably McDonalds, it is
not your coffee that is destroying rainforests it is your beef production!
Anyone who
claims it is ‘all too hard’ is taking the easy option out. Tell that to the
factory workers, child slaves, guest workers who bring you your cheap clothes,
electronics, coffee and chocolate.
One problem
for ethical consumption, however, is the widely held belief that consumers
should not be told how to act, what to buy, or how to choose. It is my
contention that soft persuasion such as education is not enough on its own to persuade
consumers to buy ethically. Consumer choice is a convenient myth perpetuated by
marketers. So many of our consumer choices have already been made for us long
before we get to the point of sale.
Yet another
criticism of the ethical consumption approach relates to the claim that
consumers will go elsewhere if they are unable to get what they want. This
view, based on the belief that consumers should have whatever they want –
whenever they want it – is fundamentally unethical.
So this is
my ethical consumption challenge: to make as few unethical choices as possible.
The challenge is ultimately to me, but also to anyone who wants to redress the
balance and make the best decisions about what we buy. It will be a permanent challenge
to illicit lasting change and it aint going to be easy, but here I go.
