Last week I had the pleasure of attending a lecture given by Jared Diamond, Pulitzer Prize-winning author of Guns, Germs and Steel and Collapse: Why Societies Fail. Professor Diamond discussed the role of big businesses in environmental conservation and ethics. He posited a set of four factors affecting a business’s decision to choose and implement environmentally sound practices: economic considerations, attitude of corporate culture, public expectations, and personal leadership.
Professor Diamond pursued the idea that as consumers, we as individuals have the power to affect corporate actions and influence reactions. The pressure that consumers place on businesses to engage in environmentally and socially sustainable practices can have an insurmountable effect on the day-to-day operation of a business. Through actions spanning the spectrum of activism such as boycotting, lobbying, letter-writing, and word of mouth, Professor Diamond painted a wonderfully idyllic world of accountable corporations.
I am left questioning the efficacy and even legitimacy of this optimistic view of a global consumerist communion. I agree that with enough pressure, businesses will cave to popular demand in order to avoid a besmirched name and a sagging profit line. But the problem with consumption activism is that it is far too often an inaccessible ideology for many people. Selective purchasing is a luxury reserved for those who can simply put, afford it. If we look at the demographics of who low-cost big businesses serve, we see that they are mainly lower-income, working class or working poor families. Stripping down even further, many of these consumers genuinely do not even have an alternative shopping solution. The big businesses that are able to sell items at such low cost are the only option for those who are struggling to merely be meeting basic needs for themselves and their families.
It’s clear that usually the lowered cost of items at stores like Wal-Mart comes at the expense of social and environmental responsibility. By taking short cuts in labour rights or environmentally sound practices, usually companies are able to increase profit margins. Is there an option then, a compromise of a responsible corporation who also uses cost-effective solutions to the problem of environmental degradation and socially just working conditions?
Businesses that are applauded for their altruistic, or at least, morally neutral practices are generally also known for their increased cost of goods, as well as catering to the ‘yuppy’ demographic of young working professionals. Lululemon, Mountain Equipment Co-op, Planet Organic, and smaller independent or local boutiques are innovators in ethical business modelling, but the accessibility of their products must be questioned. Is activism actually an elitist activity that can only be engaged in if you are able to afford it? If you are making minimum wage, all the while trying to put yourself, or your children or family through school, it is hard to find the capacity to consistently boycott those stores that while reprehensible, are the only ones at which you can afford to buy your daily bread.
In addition to the increasing cost of activism, there is the cost of time. Again, looking at the demographic of the working poor, there is often a lack of disposable income as well as disposable free time. For the single mother of three working two jobs, the ability to search out facts on company policies regarding labour or the environment is hindered. The question now isn’t whether or not we should hold accountable these companies for their indiscretions. It is clear that those of us who are able to make socially sound purchasing decisions should, but the question becomes, how can we make the act of “smart consumption” accessible to more than a bourgeois minority? There is a distinct amount of solidarity that is needed to make a true global shift to a more socially responsible corporate playing field. The language of corporate responsibility needs to become a common one, that is understandable and entrenched in the mind of the average consumer. “Smart consumption” shouldn't be accessible for just one income bracket.
No comments:
Post a Comment