Conscious Consumerism is Nice, But Don’t Get Comfortable.
Conscious consumerism is a shopping style that people adopt to buy more eco-friendly and ethical goods. Whether that be because they want to buy products they know are reducing pollution in the environment like reusable straws and being ethically sourced from farmers, or for more individual choices like having organic products in their household. People debate whether these “greener” shopping decisions that consumers are buying to be helpful are enough to help global conditions. In truth, conscious consumerism to a degree does helps helping working and environmental conditions as conscious consumers incentive companies to improve their business practices for consumers to buy their greener options. However, conscious consumerism shopping makes selective greener changes, and so conscious consumers should demand more of its governments to make more universal changes.
We see in the market a “voting with your dollar” meaning that shoppers can show their support — or subsequent disapproval — of a product or company by deciding to shop with them or never shop with them. This tactic has prompted companies to create initiatives to better align themselves with the values of their customers. For example, the coffee mega giant Starbucks “shared its multi-decade commitment to become a resource positive company by storing more carbon than it emits, eliminating waste, and replenishing more freshwater than it uses. (Starbucks) This means their 2030 environmental goals include have a fifty percent reduction in carbon, water, and waste production. Like wise it’s invested in it’s coffee farmers to support agronomy and restoration improvements in their homeland. Because Starbucks knows its consumer demographic appreciates greener movements, their initiatives align with them and they’ll be bale to keep their customers. Likewise people would be more inclined to shop with Starbucks and pay their higher prices as they believe they are contributing to these positive green actions compared to shopping with another coffeeshop. Additionally another big bran name is also working to make more transparent products — Lush. The cosmetics bran is built upon the image and promise of cruelty free and organic makeup and self care products. Recently they’ve moved from using real to synthetic mica — a mineral used to give makeup products their glimmer. Mica often is delivered to consumers without the knowledge that it could have been mined on underpaid and child labor. Lush’s decision to use synthetic mica means they are taking a stand against such practices. This is another example of how consumers can make big changes and have improved environmental and global conditions as their sway has incentivized companies to start such initiatives. But while conscious consumerism certainly improves global conditions, the reality is that it does so in isolated events. The big changes and goals set out by Starbucks and Lush, while impactful, isn’t a universal plan for all companies, rather something the two companies decided to do but didn’t have to. As it is now, conscious consumerism to be used to its full potential, needs to go hand in hand with buying green and demanding more government regulations.
People are demanding a market for greener products, more organic and ethically sourced products, meaning they want to know that their coffee beans aren’t being harvested on slave labor. And while demand for this improvement of business practices have shown results such as Starbuck’s transparent farm to table practices, it is not a universal case. Many companies greenwash their products — meaning a product can claim to be “organic,” when standards of qualifications aren’t exactly hard to pass. We see this as “In a review of 1,108 consumer products that made environmental claims, TerraChoice found that all but one provided some form of false or misleading information.” (Weeks, Buying Green) We see that even when regulations are in place, companies will still try to cut and mislead the consumers choice of buying green, and consumers will be leaving stores with the belief that their purchase contributed to a greener goal. While buying green products certainly means being able to sway company decisions to go green, some companies will try to undermine these efforts. That’s why consumers need to advocate and vote into office officials that will strictly take a stance for transparent supply chain management. And so, despite “voting with your dollar” having sway for companies to switch to greener initiatives, focusing on consumers awareness and pushing for stronger government regulations will make sure both the government and companies know that consumers are wanting real greener alternatives. If it seems people are happy thinking, they are doing good buying products in cardboard boxes, with stickers with plants on them, all in efforts to help the planet, then larger corporations don’t have to worry about the actual supply chain and being transparent of its resources. There will always be regulations and products that with their neutral tones and green plants will make consumers think they are doing enough. Sometimes it’s all some people can afford, so it’s up to those who can “vote with your dollar” to actually vote for people who will enforce the guidelines to real green products.
Defenders will say it’s better to do something than to do nothing, especially when as is, the government isn’t doing much. And they’re right, if you can afford to buy reusable straws, then for all it’s worth — go for it. But we have to recognize that some people choosing greener options like a reusable straw will not cancel out the million tons of waste generated each year. Likewise, not even can afford selective greener options. When you’re on a budget it’s impossible to switch from your plastic bottled shampoo to more organic shampoo that costs twice as much and generally doesn’t last as long. Likewise, critiisicm of the current government is valid. Why isn’t the government doing more? The answer is because we’re not demanding they do more. People will try to individually do more, after all, “Globally, we’re projected to spend $9.32 billion in 2017 on green cleaning products.” (Wicker, Quartz) but again this will only support greener companies and not set a requirement for all companies and only be accessible for those who can afford it. If people opted to use that money to support organizations and lobbying our governments for the green changes we want to see across the entire market, then there would be a tangible and great effect on global environmental and working conditions.
While buying greener options certainly can incentivize and create greater change as seen with companies such as Starbucks and Lush, the reality is that they’re isolated events and the change is being generated by the one company that you’re supporting rather than a standard greener practice for all companies. Consumers can and should continue to choose the greener option when they can, but more importantly get down to the root of issues so that they can truly make a change with the power they have. So at the end of the day, if you have the ability to do so, “Instead of buying a $200 air purifier, donate to politicians who support policies that keep our air and water clean.” (Wicker, Quartz) If you get down to the root of issues, you won’t need that air purifier.
