WP2 — Conscious Consumerism
Humans are beginning to use their spending power to compensate for their environmentally damaging actions, thereby offsetting certain environmental ‘costs’ by going “green”. This idea is known as ‘conscious consumerism’. This shift in consumerism has been more beneficial to firms than it ever will be for global work or environmental conditions. Firms hike prices exponentially for ‘sustainable goods’, and persuade consumers using labels such as ‘organic’, ‘fair-trade’, etc. Nevertheless, with rampant economic growth in our capitalistic society, ‘sustainable products’ are becoming increasingly available. However, the increased prices have made ‘conscious consumerism’ a ‘status symbol’ rather than a movement to benefit the environment. Economic growth, conscious consumerism and a ‘consumer’s wants’ are directly proportional. They say that this makes conscious consumerism a more attainable idea, however, I argue that consumers begin to overconsume and waste their resources; therefore, the road to significantly improving global work, and environmental conditions is to buy less rather than buy sustainable.
A significant improvement in the environment can only be caused if the power to do so is in the masses, rather than the elite 1%. It’s a fact that sustainable products cost significantly more than other products, because of the labels they carry, or the way they were made. A Telegraph article notes that sustainable products, in fact, cost about 75% more than other goods. This statistic supports the idea that such products are inaccessible to the masses, and are meant only for people that can afford them. Firms are unable to supply sustainable products at a cheaper price, because they’re expensive to produce — about 50% greater than other goods. Today, an average consumer has $4000 to spend per month — in which they have to cover rent, and their cost of commute; even if, they are willing to buy sustainable products for the betterment of the world, they aren’t able. If the rich continue to consume sustainable goods, while the average/poor consumer doesn’t, overall improvement is highly unlikely. This practice also increases the income inequality gap in the world, where the well-being of the rich will improve while the others’ will deteriorate or stay stagnant.
When rich consumers ‘buy green’, they tend to make unnecessary purchases because they are willing and able to. These unnecessary purchases result in the overconsumption of resources, thereby offsetting the improvement caused by using the ‘green’ resources. Perri Russel, ‘a conscious consumer’, says “Our world is overrun with advertisements and promotions and a culture that is begging you to just consume, consume, consume”. In today’s capitalistic society, it is very hard to ask a consumer not to buy more as their income increases. As Russel suggests, consumers are primed to consume ‘more, more, more, therefore believe that if they used their income to buy ‘more’ green resources their social status and individual-induced-environmental benefit will increase. Yes, sustainable goods do benefit the environment and improve global work i.e. fair-trade coffee. However, overconsumption is never a good thing! Consumers don’t understand that buying 3 boxes of fair trade coffee, when you need only one, results into wastage and therefore deteriorates rather than improves the environment! Green goods need to be treated like normal goods, because economically they are ‘normal goods’ — as income goes up, people consume more of these goods. Therefore, it’s important to know that overconsuming green or other normal goods is the same thing! There is no added benefit whatsoever in overconsuming green goods.
Many times when consumers purchase green goods they can be victims to ‘greenwashing’ done by firms. Producers produce, consumers consume: that’s basic economics. Producers value long-term corporate growth and maximising profits as their primary goals while doing business. The CQ research guide points out that firms’ goals and impactful, and sustainable carbon offsets are parallel actions. I agree with this. Growing sustainability, has led to growing ‘greenwashing’. CNBC describes this phenomenon as “the deceptive practice of branding a company as environmentally-friendly without adopting legitimate sustainable operations”. Even though, the FTI is regulating ‘green’ labels, to an extent, they cannot assure complete correctness. If firms were to be 100% honest, profits would fall, business would close, and the economy would collapse.
Conscious consumerism is set to change the fundamentals of a buyer and sellers mindset. Associate Professor at University of Arizona, Sabrina Helm studied conscious consumers and concluded that since “we’re brought up this way, changing behaviours is very different”. She suggests that “since childhood that there’s a product for everything and it’s OK to buy, and it’s a good thing because that’s how the economy works”. Creating alternatives for every product, and spending 50% more money than usual is an incredibly difficult and unlikely ordeal. This could take producers and consumers years, and therefore further delay environmental improvement. Therefore an impactful, efficient, and accessible solution is to ‘buy less’. If consumers began efficiently consuming resources, and bought only what they needed, there would be no wastage, and therefore an automatic improvement in the environment.
Millennials, the biggest consumers of today’s age, continuously practice in the art of ‘buying less’, therefore, propagating this strategy is not only socio-economically beneficial but also easily appliable. As Brayden King said, “consumers are creatures of habit”. Therefore, in order to improve the environment we need to work towards a solution that complements normal consumer behaviour. Millennials, Gen-Z kids, usually budget themselves as they grow, and thus purchase goods only when they really need it. I am a college student, and a Gen-Z boy, I can attest to this idea. If the government launched plans to help consumers like me and others budget their livelihood, people would begin to grow more conscious of their spending and restrict themselves to ‘buying less’. This idea transcends to the top 1% of the world as well; if they’re constantly made aware — the same way they’re made aware to buy ‘green — of their spending and begin budgeting their lives they’d realise the unnecessary items they’re buying and begin to be more frugal with their money — investing it in more valuable options such as the stock market, social/charitable foundations, education, or real-estate. Thereby, improving global work and environmental conditions by ‘buying less’ and ‘investing smart’.
Some people might be confused about how should we make one spend less amidst growing capitalism. I feel like there isn’t a policy or a method to do so, because one needs to control the urge of spending more. This can be done by spreading awareness on why overconsuming resources hurt the world, and how consuming efficiently improves overall well-being. Through videos, pamphlets, advertisements, plans, money for waste reduction etc. These methods will begin to prime consumers other than millennials to buy less. Some may say that millennials are occupy the most of the 1% and hence are the biggest over consumers. However, I argue that millennials are the most educated consumers there are hence if awareness regarding overconsumption was propagated like ‘consumption’ is then I feel like millennials would be the primary efficient consumers.
In conclusion, capitalism is counterintuitive and unsupportive of conscious consumerism — but it’s the way the world functions! If consumers continued to ‘buy green’ instead of ‘buying less’, environmental benefit will remain limited and there will be minimal/no long-term improvement. Therefore, the definition and tasks of a conscious consumer must be marketed differently: limit overall shopping, consider second hand options, and pivot to activism. These methods work around our existing system, and are ironically sustainable too!
