Ethics are great, well as long as they’re under $9.99

What they don’t tell you about ethical consumption.

THE GREAT ethical dilemma.

Your average consumer is bound to experience it.

Have you ever considered why older people carry their reading glasses to the supermarket? Why do parents refuse to buy their children toys made in China? Or why do they buy food that’s close to its expiration date?

Don’t be mistaken into thinking that it’s because they want to read the price tags or save up on money.

No.

It’s because they’re actively thinking about human rights abuses in the DRC, poor working conditions in China and the harmful effects of pesticides in the countryside.

The consumer is well-informed and deeply concerned about their fellow factory and field workers. Hence, taking their time to read every label and to compare different products before choosing the product of perfect fairness.

Of course, this is an image taken straight out of a utopia.

Our world is much more pragmatic and for the average consumer, ethical consumption is anything but simple.

Photo by Parker Coffman on Unsplash

Ethical shopping is more expensive than we were led to believe

The way that a consumer interacts with a product is great insight for companies. With the rise of the sustainable rhetoric, companies had to adapt to new demands and market sustainable consumption as the solution.

Because… cutting down on production and therefore profit, was out of question!

Patagonia, introduced a repair service for bought garments; Ikea encouraged the reuse of their products; and Adidas turned to biodegradable materials.

The buyer felt good about themselves again and continued consuming. However, alternative brands are often more costly, less available and less branded. As much as we would like to believe in the effectiveness of ethical consumption, the majority of customers wouldn’t say that they prioritize ethics when making decisions.

Sociologists Diekmann and Preisendörfer have uncovered in a 2003 study that “few consumers put their money where their mouth is”, referred to as the attitude-behaviour gap (Andorfer, 2015).

They found that individual actors take part in environmental behaviour only at a low-cost and at little inconvenience. If 74% of people said that they fear for future environmental conditions, only 27% favoured environmental protection at the cost of job losses (Diekmann, Preisendörfer, 2003).

The study shows that people’s intentions get lost when they come at a higher price than what they are willing to pay. Yes, they care for the environment, but under the condition that they get to keep their environmentally detrimental jobs.

Since price plays such a big role in consumer habits, lower income families find it especially hard to follow trends and to consider more sustainable options.

It turns out that being environmentally responsible when you’re living paycheck to paycheck is not realistic.

As organic food or sustainable clothing internalize an additional social and environmental cost, their selling price is higher. We can see how this additional cost can be unattractive when added to the cost of living (Li Yun, 2020).

What’s more, for lower-income households, fitting in matters more than standing out, and they tend to see ethical consumption as something that sets them apart. Companies take advantage of this by advertising low-cost, low-quality products and selling on affordability.

Ethics become an optional add-on.

Photo by Benjamin Cheng on Unsplash

However, price is just as much of an excuse for high-earning individuals

They don’t have the interest to consume more conscientiously because they justify their consumption with the high prices they pay.

Paying for more makes them feel worthy of consuming more.

Think of it this way: in order to uphold a certain social image, upper-class individuals have to distinguish themselves from the rest. By choosing ethics, they are forced to consume less, which alas, clashes with the image that they are trying to project (Bourdieu, 1979).

As consumption is tied to social distinction, ethics are not prioritized and there is always an underlying motive behind their promotion. If someone commits to sustainability, ask yourself, what’s in it for them? If ethics are in that season, practicing them makes us more socially relevant.

And because adopting an ethical attitude is considered as “doing the right thing”, it allows consumers to feel better about themselves. It even makes them feel entitled to a reward. This behaviour is counter-productive because we end up over-indulging either way. As we feel morally “accomplished” by our good deed, we justify additional consumption.

Ethical consumption then becomes a self-centred action, through which we are seeking personal gratification.

As we try to act according to society’s expectations, we present an image of false commitment and lose the ethical value of it all.

But people still buy into the illusion

Companies that don’t necessarily believe in ethical consumption, may still participate in it- for what I like to call “clout”.

Clout is what keeps them relevant in the market, it’s what gives them visibility and influence. Companies mine this “clout” when they label their products as “plant-based” or “carbon-neutral” or tag them with certificates like Fair Trade or USDA Organic (Muthukumar, 2023). These labels don’t always indicate genuine commitment and are used more as tools to legitimize detrimental actions.

To stay relevant, they must appeal to the public and its moral preferences. But once the trend gets old, attention shifts.

People forget about whales washed ashore with stomachs full of plastic, wars waged over rare minerals, or poisoned waters that turn people sick.

We consume to forget, and we forget in order to consume.

Photo by Gera Kulik on Unsplash

Ultimately,

Consumers may claim to be committed to sustainability, but there is a clear gap between their intentions and their actions. We are yet again more concerned about our social image than our social and environmental impact.

Businesses profit from this weakness by justifying consumerism.

Ethical consumption becomes another distraction, another illusion from the real damage that capitalism causes.

These green marketing campaigns make us feel better about our consumption, but corporations continue to produce in surplus and bury the planet in trash.

References

1. Andorfer, A. (2015). Ethical Consumers. Ethical Consumption. ScienceDirect. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/ethical-consumption
2. Boeuf, B. (2024, August 25). Sustainable consumption: too expensive for the poor, not enough for the wealthy. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/sustainable-consumption-too-expensive-for-the-poor-not-enough-for-the-wealthy-244058
3. Bourdieu, P. (1979). Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Monoskop.org. https://monoskop.org/images/e/e0/Pierre_Bourdieu_Distinction_A_Social_Critique_of_the_Judgement_of_Taste_1984.pdf
4. Diekmann, A., Preisendörfer, P. (2003). Rationality and Society. Green and Greenback: The Behavioral Effects of Environmental Attitudes in Low-Cost and High-Cost Situations. ResearchGate. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/240704461_Green_and_Greenback_The_Behavioral_Effects_of_Environmental_Attitudes_in_Low-Cost_and_High-Cost_Situations
5. Muthukumar, K. (2023). Vol 44. No8. Pg 1335. The Rise of Ethical Consumerism: Marketing Strategies for the conscious buyer. Journal of Harbin Engineering University. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374415128_The_Rise_of_Ethical_Consumerism_Marketing_Strategies_for_the_Conscious_Buyer
6. Yan, L., Tat Keh, H., Chen, J. (2020). Assimilating and differentiating: The curvilinear effect of social class on green consumption. Journal of Consumer Research- Oxford Academic. https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article-abstract/47/6/914/5890485